KODAKKAL SHAHANAS Vs. KYTHAL THAYYIL SHAHIDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rent Control Court, Vatakara tried three rent control petitions jointly and dismissed them. Three appeals were filed before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Vatakara. The appeals were allowed. The proceedings relating to this revision are R.C.P. 32/2011 and R.C.A. 39/2012.

(2.) Eviction of the tenant was sought under section 11(2)(b) and (3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (for short, "the Act"). The landlady did not press the ground under section 11(2)(b). She prosecuted only the ground under section 11(3). Holding the need to be not bona fide, the Rent Control Court dismissed R.C.P. 32/2011. The Appellate Authority allowed R.C.A. 39/2012. It directed the tenant to vacate the premises. She preferred this revision.

(3.) The landlady owns a single storied building which consists of six rooms in a row. The revision petitioner is the tenant of one such room. The landlady has a daughter by name Narmina. Her husband is Sajir. The landlady sought eviction of her tenants to enable Narmina and Sajir to construct a house after demolishing the existing building. Narmina and Sajir are contended to be depending upon the landlady. The tenant disputes the bona fide need and the dependency pleaded by the landlady. According to the tenant, Narmina and Sajir have no intention to return to India soon.