GEORGE Vs. UNNI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the landlord against whom the Rent Control Court, Chengannur passed an order, dismissing R.C.P. No. 2/2002 filed under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, (hereinafter referred to as the "Act", for short). The said order was passed on a finding that the need, projected in the Rent Control Petition, lacks bona fides. In appeal, the Appellate Authority also confirmed the said finding and dismissed the appeal. Thus the legality and propriety of the concurrent findings of the courts below, that the need projected was not a bona fide one, are assailed in this revision petition.

(2.) According to the landlord, he requires the petition schedule building to construct a residential building for his 2nd daughter, Leena George. Her husband was working abroad but now returned and now he has no avocation at all, for his livelihood. Now Leena George is depending upon him for livelihood and education of her children. So, the petitioner intends to construct a residential house on that portion of his property, where the petition schedule building is situated, after demolishing the petition schedule building, which stands in a dilapidated condition. So also, several other alternative buildings are available in the locality to shift the business from the petition schedule building.

(3.) The tenant resisted the said claim for eviction, contending that the need projected is a pretext for eviction only. The petition is filed with a mala fide intention to rent out the shop room for higher rent, after evicting him from the petition schedule building. The petitioner's daughter and her husband were working in Gulf country, for about 15 years and they are financially in a high position. The petitioner's daughter Leena George is not at all a dependent of the petitioner and she is not in need of a residential building as she is living in her husband's house at Ananthapally in Adoor Taluk. According to him, the building is not dilapidated as alleged by him and he is entitled to get protection under the 2nd proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act.