CHALUPARAMBATH HASHIM Vs. SHAKKEELA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the tenant and the respondents are the landlords, who filed Rent Control Petition seeking eviction against the revision petitioner under Section 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(4)(i) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, (for short, 'the Act'). The parties are referred to as in the original Rent Control Petition. According the 1 st petitioner, the petition schedule shop room belongs to him and the same was rented out to the respondent and he is conducting a stationery business in the petition schedule shop room and now he is in bona fide need of the petition schedule shop room for starting stationery business for the 2 nd and 3 rd petitioners. Further, the respondent has sublet the petition schedule shop room to his brothers Shafi and Aslam and now they are conducting business in the petition schedule shop room. The income derived from the petition schedule shop room is not the main source of income as the petitioner has job and business abroad. Several other vacant rooms are available in the locality to shift the business of the respondent. Hence the petition was filed under the aforesaid provisions seeking eviction of the respondent from the petition schedule shop room. The respondent denied the bona fide need put forward by the petitioners. According to him, he has not sublet the shop room to his brothers. He is depending on the income derived from the business in the petition schedule shop room. The bona fide need alleged in the petition is a ruse for eviction. The 3 rd petitioner is running business at Chennai and he is immensely rich and he has got landed properties and buildings of his own and no other shop room is required to shift his business. The respondent prayed for dismissal of the petition.

(2.) On the aforesaid rival pleadings, both parties adduced evidence consists of the oral testimony of P.W.1 and R.W1, Exts.A1 to A2(b) and B1 to B5 and after considering the evidence on record the trial court allowed the petition under Section 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act. Aggrieved by the order granting eviction of the respondent, the respondent preferred appeal before the Appellate Authority. After re-appreciating the evidence on record the Appellate Authority confirmed the findings of the Rent Control Court under Section 11(3) of the Act and dismissed the appeal. Thus, the legality and propriety of the concurrent findings whereby the courts below granted eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act have come up for consideration in this Rent Control Revision.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.