JOSEPH Vs. THOMAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TENANT is the revision petitioner in both the Civil Revision Petitions. The respondent landlord filed petition under S.11(8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for additional accommodation for his personal use. The Rent Controller dismissed the petition mainly holding that one of the rooms in the ground floor of the residential building can be used as respondent's separate office. Respondent filed appeals before the Appellate Authority as R.C.A. Nos. 102 of 1992 and 119 of 1992. The Appellate Authority allowed the appeals and reversed the findings of the Rent Controller. The eviction was granted in favour of the respondent under S.11(8) of the Act.

(2.) THE Rent Controller on a consideration of the evidence held in para 8 of the order that the landlord is having considerable activities which require office space of reasonable magnitude. Despite the said finding, the Rent Controller held that the landlord has failed to prove the bona fides of his claim and the requirement of additional accommodation. The Appellate Authority considered the rival contentions of the parties elaborately and concluded that the landlord has established his case for additional accommodation.

(3.) CONTENTION of the revision petitioner is that a portion of the drawing room can be used as office and so additional accommodation sought is without any justification. In view of the evidence on the side of the respondent that he has a large family and also in view of the fact that conversion of the drawing room would not be suitable to meet his requirements it has to be necessarily held that the Appellate Authority was justified in granting eviction under S.11(8) of the Act.