THEKKEPEEDIYEKKAL ALI Vs. PARAPPURATH SAFIYA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the tenant in RCP No. 59/2012 on the files of Rent Control Court, Tirur and the said application was filed under Sections 11 (2) (b), 11 (3) and 11 (8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter 'the Act' in short). According to the landlords, the petition schedule building was required for starting a bridal shop and they have no other vacant buildings in their possession in the same locality to start the said business. Thus the petition was filed for their own occupation.

(2.) The tenant resisted the said contention contending that the need projected in the petition is tainted with mala fides. According to the tenant, the rent control petition was intended for getting enhancement in the quantum of rent. Further it was contended that the landlords have other vacant shop rooms of their own to start the proposed business and the petitioner is entitled to get protection under the second proviso to Section 11 (3) of the Act. Further it is contended that earlier landlords have filed RCP 21/2008 and obtained an order of eviction under Section 11 (3) of the Act for the very same need and thereafter they have let out the petition schedule shop rooms to the tenant himself for enhanced rent and it shows that the present need projected in the petition is also intended for getting higher rent.

(3.) On the aforesaid pleadings both parties adduced evidence and after considering the evidence on record, the Rent Control Court dismissed the petition. The landlords preferred an appeal before the appellate authority as RCA No. 39/2013. After re-appreciating the evidence on record the appellate authority reversed the findings of the rent control court and allowed the appeal under Section 11 (3) of the Act. Thus, the legality and propriety of the divergent findings of the courts below under Section 11 (3) of the Act have come up in revision before us.