ABDUL SAMAD Vs. AMINA, C.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Tenant is in revision. His eviction was sought under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (for short the Act). The rent control court as well as the appellate authority found the need of the landlady to be bona fide. Parties are referred to in this order as they are shown in the rent control petition or as landlady and tenant.

(2.) The case of the petitioner may be briefly stated as follows : She owns the room shown in the schedule to the rent control petition. The same was tenanted to the respondent. The petitioner needs the tenanted room in order to accommodate her husband to enable him to do business in vegetables. The petitioner is not in possession of any room for the said purpose except the one on the rear side of the main building. The said room is not at all suitable for the business proposed to be conducted by the husband of the petitioner.

(3.) The respondent/tenant raised the following contentions : The husband of the petitioner who filed the petition as the power of attorney holder had no right to file it. Therefore the petition itself is not maintainable. The husband of the petitioner is not depending on her. The husband has other properties in which he can do business. The petitioner also has several other rooms in her possession. The petitioner and her husband being multimillionaires cannot be expected to do business in vegetables in the premises tenanted to the respondent. RCP 5/2012 filed by the petitioner for eviction on the very same ground was dismissed. The intention of the petitioner is to evict the tenant somehow or other. He is depending for his livelihood solely on the income derived from the business run in the tenanted premises. He has no other means for his livelihood. No suitable alternative building is available in the locality for him to carry on his business.