ABDUL KHADER @ ABDUL RAHMAN KUTTY Vs. GIREESH BABU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioners are landlords who filed RCP No.5/2005 before the Rent Control Court, Thiruvalla under Section 11 (3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act ('the Act' for short). The said Rent Control Petition was filed with the averments that the second son of the petitioners is an automobile engineering diploma holder and eldest son of the petitioners is also unemployed and that the petition schedule shop room is required for starting an automobile spare parts business for their sons who are dependents on them, for the petition schedule building. The respondent filed objection contending that there is no bona fide in the need of the petitioners and it is a ruse for eviction only. They claimed protection under the second proviso to Section 11 (3) also. After trial, the Rent Control Court has passed an order rejecting the Rent Control Petition on a finding that, though, they have succeeded in establishing the bona fide need the respondents/tenants are entitled to get a protection under the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act.

(2.) Challenging the said order the revision petitioners filed appeal and the appellate authority allowed the appeal and eviction was allowed on the ground under Section 11 (3) of the Act.

(3.) Respondent filed RCR 170/2011 before this Court challenging the said order of eviction passed by the appellate authority and this Court held that bona fide need pleaded is genuine and confirmed the findings rendered by the appellate authority on bona fide need. But this Court remanded the matter back to the appellate authority to consider the appeal afresh regarding the first and second proviso to Section 11 (3) of the Act. The parties were given an opportunity to adduce further evidence also.