P INDIRA AMMA Vs. P MOHANAN NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the landlady, who had initiated these proceedings about more than 13 years back for getting the premises vacated for the bona fide need of her son, who was not having any avocation for starting a provision store.

(2.) It is the case of the revision petitioner/landlady that both the courts below had grossly erred in rejecting her application. The courts below have held erroneously that PW.1 Harikumar, the son of the petitioner for whom the premises was sought, has admitted that PW.1 himself is running a bakery in the adjacent shop room, which is also owned by the petitioner. It is the specific case of the petitioner that her eldest son Sreekumar is running the bakery and PW.1 is jobless.

(3.) It is the case of the respondent/tenant that PW.1 Harikumar for whom the premises was sought, is running a bakery in the adjacent shop room and not Sreekumar, as contended by the petitioner.