KRISHNAN NAIR Vs. LEKSHMI AMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An order of eviction on the ground under S.11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, Act 2 of 1965 (for short 'the Act') has been passed by the Rent Control Court. It was confirmed in appeal and a revision under S.20 of the Act became unsuccessful. The building originally belonged to one Neelakantan Nair, which on his death had devolved on his widow and five children. They filed the application in the Rent Control Court for an order of eviction on the ground that the building is bona fide needed for the occupation of one of them (the 4th respondent) to start a business in automobile spare parts. The said claim is found to be bona fide by all the three authorities below and thus the tenant is now faced with an order of eviction.

(2.) The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner (tenant) in this revision is this: The ground under S.11(3) of the Act can be availed of only by a landlord who is entitled to possession of the building in his own exclusive right, and it is not available to a coowner as he cannot exclude the other coowners from possession. To bolster up the above contention the learned counsel has relied on the following observation of the Supreme Court in M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal ( AIR 1981 SC 1113 ):

(3.) S.11 of the Act enumerates the different grounds for which a landlord is entitled to apply to the Rent Control Court for an order of eviction. The ground of the landlord's bona fide need for his own occupation is included in S.11(3) of the Act. That sub-section is subject to four provisos, but, for the purpose of this case, none of them is relevant. The sub-section postulates two limbs for the bona fide need of the landlord. The first is the need for "his own occupation" and the second is "for the occupation by any member of his family dependant on him". The second limb is also not relevant in this case and therefore no consideration regarding that point is necessary for the disposal of this revision. Shorn of those portions which are unnecessary in this context, S.11(3) of the Act can be read as follows: