RAO & COMPANY Vs. BAIJU P JOSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenants in R.C.P.No.82/2010 on the files of Rent Control Court, Ernakulam, have come up in revision before this Court, challenging the concurrent findings of the courts below, made under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short 'the Act'). This Rent Control Revision has been filed mainly on the ground that the courts below have placed reliance on irrelevant evidence and failed to consider the relevant evidence and thereby the factual findings warrant interference of this Court under Revisional Jurisdiction.

(2.) According to the landlords, they bona fide need the petition schedule building for starting a retail outlet of ready-made garments and dress materials for ladies by the wife of the second petitioner, who is depending on the petitioners for the purpose of plaint schedule shop room. On the other hand, the tenants contended that the bona fide need projected in the petition is a ruse for eviction only, as the dependant has no previous experience or existing business of garments in their building by name "Panakkal Tourist Home", as claimed by them. So also, it is contended that the landlords are in possession of other vacant rooms and the tenants are mainly depending upon the income derived from the business in the petition schedule shop room and that no other vacant buildings are available in the locality to shift their business.

(3.) On the aforesaid pleadings, the second petitioner was examined as PW1 and the dependant was examined as PW2. Exhibits A1 to A3 were marked for them. Two partners of the first petitioner Company was examined as RW1 and RW2 and Exhibit C1 Commission Report was marked. After evaluating the evidence, on record, the Trial Court found that the need projected is a bona fide one and that the tenants are not entitled to get protection under Section 11(3) of the Act. The Appellate Court also concurred with the aforesaid findings and dismissed the appeal.