RAGHUNATH Vs. ABDUL SALAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Revision petitioner is the tenant, who suffered an order of eviction passed concurrently by the courts below under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short, 'the Act'). The landlords, three in number, filed four rent control petitions against four tenants claiming an order of eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act on the ground that they bon afide need the four tenanted premises for starting a furniture business. (The parties are referred to as in the Rent Control Petition). According to petitioners 2 and 3, they do not have any avocation or source of income. The 1st petitioner is now working abroad and he intends to return, as he is not getting sufficient income from his job abroad and he also intends to join with the other petitioners in the said furniture business to be conducted in the tenanted premises after getting vacant possession of the same. They further contended that they have no other vacant buildings of their own in their possession to start the proposed business and several other vacant buildings are available in the locality to shift the business of the respondents from their tenanted premises.

(2.) All the respondents raised a common contention that the need projected by the petitioners is a ruse for eviction only. Further, it is also contended that the tenanted premises are not suitable for starting a furniture business and no other vacant buildings are available in the locality for the purpose of shifting the business. According to them, they are all depending upon the income derived from the tenanted premises. They claimed the protection under the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act.

(3.) On the aforesaid pleadings, both parties adduced evidence and on appreciation of evidence, the courts below concurrently found that the need projected in the petition is bona fide and the respondents are not entitled to get a protection under the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. It was also found that the rent control petitions are not hit by the first proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. The legality and propriety of the concurrent findings of the courts below are challenged in this revision petition.