CHERUVALATH KRISHNADASAN Vs. ADDISSERY RAGHAVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The landlord, who is confronting with a common order dismissing the Rent Control Petitions, filed under Section 11(8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short, "the Act"), has come up before this Court, in Revision, challenging the divergent findings under Section 11(8) of the Act.

(2.) The Rent Control Court found that the landlord is entitled to get an order of eviction under Section 11(8) of the Act, as the need for additional accommodation claimed by the landlord is a bona fide one and the hardship, which may be caused to the tenant, if an order of eviction is passed, will not outweigh the advantage to the landlord. But, in the appeals, the Appellate Authority reversed the findings of the bona fides found by the Rent Control Court and further found that the landlord has vacant rooms, in three other buildings of his own, in his possession and thereby the need projected is not a bona fide one and the hardship that may be caused to the tenant would outweigh the advantage to the landlord. Thus, the findings of the courts below under Section 11(8) of the Act stand in divergence.

(3.) According to the petitioner/landlord, he is a Government contractor and he bona fide needs the petition schedule shop room, for using as an office of his firm, namely M/s.Prabeesh Constructions. He wants the petition schedule shop room, for the purpose of accommodating his staff, installing computers and for providing chambers for himself and the staff. At present, it is functioning in a room situated in the petition schedule building. He is not in possession of any other vacant room, which is suitable for the proposed purpose, in the very same building. But, the tenant has another room, in his possession, in the building owned by one Abdul Rehiman and the same is sufficient for his business.