K.P.RAJAN Vs. AYISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Revision petitioner is the tenant who is confronting with an order of eviction concurrently passed against him under Sec.11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (for short "the Act"), by the courts below. According to the landlord, the petition schedule building is required for starting a business of 'Catering Service' and 'vadaka' store for the 3rd petitioner and he has no building in his possession to store all the utensils and equipments for running the 'Catering service'. It is also averred that he has no other suitable vacant room in his possession for the said purpose and the tenant is not entitled to get protection under the proviso to Sec.11(3) of the building.

(2.) The tenant resisted the said contention contending that the need projected in the petition is not a bona fide one as the petitioner is having sufficient other sources of income and he is conducting a footwear and stationery business in the said locality. That apart, the 3rd petitioner is a real estate agent and he is getting considerable income from the said source also. So also the 3rd petitioner has no experience in the field of 'catering service'.

(3.) On the aforesaid rival contentions both parties adduced evidence and after evaluating the evidence on record the Rent Control Court found that the need projected is a bona fide one and the tenant is not entitled to get protection under the proviso to Sec.11(3) of the Act. In appeal, the Appellate Court also confirmed the findings of the Rent Control Court as such and dismissed the appeal. Thus the legality and correctness of the concurrent findings under Sec.11(3) of the Act have come up in Revision.