K S MYMOONA Vs. DUNLOP INDIA LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitions are filed by the landlords challenging the common order in R.C.A. No. 92/2001 of the Rent Control Appellate Authority over the common order in R.C.P. Nos. 45/1999 and 146/1999 with respect to the premises involved. The petition scheduled building are building No. 36/1134 of Cochin Corporation in 83 cents of land in Survey No. 341/1 of Ernakulam Village (R.C.P. No. 45/1999) and building No. 36/1133 in 75 cents of land in Survey No. 341/1 and 341/2 of Ernakulam Village (R.C.P. No. 146/1999) owned by the mother and sons who are the landlords. The premises are adjacent and situated in the same compound and the tenant is the same. The eviction was sought under S.11(2)(b), 11(3), 11(4)(i) and 11(4)(v) of the Kerala Buildings lease and Rent Control Act, 1965 (Act 2 of 1965) for short 'the Act'. The R.C.Ps. were tried jointly and the Rent Control court allowed the applications under S.11(4)(v) and 11(3) of the Act. The Appellate Authority reversed the findings against which order the landlords have filed these revision petitions.

(2.) It is contended that the findings of the appellate authority are liable to be set aside as the same is not based on proper reasons and is the result of perverse appreciation of the facts involved and the application of misconceived notions of law.

(3.) It was found by the appellate authority that the pleading and evidence so far as the pleading under S.11(3) of the Act were so vague, hazy and indefinite and hence the need put forward does not satisfy the test of bona fides. We find that the case set up is that the landlords jointly and individually required the buildings for their own use. It was not specified as to what is the specific purpose for which the premises were required. It is just a sweeping statement, i.e., a recital in support of the claim under S.11(3) of the Act. It is seen that in the evidence of PW 1 who is the 5th petitioner / landlord, the son of the first petitioner who has deposed on behalf of the landlord nothing is mentioned about the nature of the business proposed to be started although he has stated that the premises are required for starting business. Evidently such a statement is hardly sufficient to satisfy the bona fides of the need envisaged under S.11(3)of the Act. It would not be possible to properly dispute the bona fides of the alleged need unless the nature of the business or at least the bare details of the same is not mentioned if not in the pleadings at least in evidence. Only then the respondent would be able to expose the hollowness of the claim, if it is so. May be the premises is unsuitable for the particular business or that the petitioners may not be having the required skill or expertise or experience in the business sought to be started or that they may not be in a position to garner the required financial input to start and sustain the enterprise. If the nature of the business is kept in the dark neither the respondent can properly challenge the same nor can the court ascertain the bona fides of the need set up. The result of such concealment would result in gross prejudice to the tenant. Perhaps even if the landlord is not having experience or the financial base he may be able to manage the same by employing skilled persons or by availing loan etc. from financial institutions. He may also have ideas to make necessary modifications to the premises to instal the proposed business. But all these have to be explained before the court. Only then the respondent/tenant can contest the same and the court can enter into a finding as to the bona fides of the need set up. In the instant case, as rightly held by the appellate authority the petitioners/landlords have not revealed even the bare minimum required so that the court can have an objective finding as to the bona fides of the need set up. Hence, we find that there is nothing illegal or improper in the finding of the appellate authority with respect to the claim set up under S.11(3) of the Act.