LAWS(KER)-1996-1-25

PALAKKAD DISTRICT CO OP BANK Vs. MOHAMMED KALEEM

Decided On January 23, 1996
PALAKKAD DISTRICT CO-OP. BANK Appellant
V/S
MOHAMMED KALEEM Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Revision petitioners, the Palakkad District Cooperative Printing Press Limited (for short 'the Society') and its President, are challenging the concurrent orders of eviction of the building occupied by the Society as a tenant under the respondents on the ground of bona fide need.

(2.) Though in the Memorandum of Revision, the correctness of the finding regarding bona fide need was also challenged, at the time of arguments learned counsel for the revision petitioners Shri. V. Chitambaresh, according to us very fairly, has not pressed any such contentions and has raised only one point for our consideration. The learned counsel has thus canvassed the correctness of the view taken by the Rent Control Court and the learned District Judge that the tenant in this case being a Cooperative Society is disentitled to avail the protection granted under the second proviso to S.11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 to the tenants in general. It was forcefully submitted that so long as the Society is a tenant as defined in the Act and satisfies the two mandatory conditions stipulated in the second proviso to S.11(3) of the Act, the Society cannot be denied the benefit of the said proviso which is a very valuable protection conferred on the tenants in general by the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, a beneficial legislation mainly intended to protect the tenants from unreasonable eviction by the landlords. The learned counsel has sought support for the above contention from a Division Bench decision of this Court reported in 1986 KLT 1250 (Haji P. Mammu v. Abdurahiman Basha).

(3.) The second proviso to S.11(3) of the Act is thus: