P K BALAKRISHANAN Vs. ORAKKAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the tenant and the respondent is the landlady. The respondent filed the Rent Control Petition under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), claiming eviction of the tenanted premises. The brief facts of the case are the following

(2.) The scheduled room originally belonged to the grandmother of the respondent. The same was taken on lease by the tenant in the year 1983. On 27-03-2004, the grandmother executed a will bequeathing the said room in favour of the respondent. The testator died on 20-04-2004. Soon thereafter, the respondent issued a notice to the tenant on 16-09-2004 claiming arrears of rent from 1-6-2003. When the Rent Control Petition was filed, apart from the ground under Section 11(2)(b) of the Act, the ground under Section 11(3) of the Act was also included. The respondent wanted the room for starting a Tax Consultancy Office for her. The revision petitioner / tenant resisted the application, contending that the need urged is not bona fide and she does not require the room for running the consultancy business. Further, it was submitted that the tenant is using the room in connection with his business, which is being run in the adjacent room. He is depending on the income from the said business for his livelihood.

(3.) From the side of the landlady, PWs. 1 and 2 were examined and Exhibits A1 to A5 were marked. From the side of the respondent, no evidence was tendered. The Rent Controller allowed the application on both the grounds. The appellate authority affirmed it. Hence this revision.