(1.) Concurrent findings of the courts below under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (for short 'the Act') have come up in this revision preferred by the tenant. The parties are referred to as in the rent control petition.
(2.) According to the petitioners, the son of the 2nd petitioner is an engineering graduate. His father was working abroad and he suffered a paralytic stroke. So he could not go back and now he is bedridden. So to earn the livelihood for his family, it became necessary for him, to have some avocation. Since the father is bedridden, he is not able to engage himself in any other employment. He bona fide needs the petition schedule building for starting a 'plastic recycling unit' and for the same, spacious yard and storing place are required. According to the landlady no vacant buildings of her own are available in her possession for starting the proposed business. On the other hand, several other vacant buildings are available in the locality for the occupation of the respondent.
(3.) The respondent opposed the claim for eviction contending that the need projected in the petition is not bona fide. It is contended that the proposed 'plastic recycling unit' cannot be started in that area since it is situated 200 metres away from sea and residential area. The 2nd petitioner is employed with lucrative salary and the allegation that he has no job or avocation is not correct. The 1st petitioner has other vacant buildings of her own, for starting the proposed business. The respondent is conducting a business of antique furniture in the petition schedule building and the said business requires huge space. He is mainly depending on the income conducted in the tenanted premises and no other vacant buildings are available in the locality for shifting his business from the tenanted premises. If he is evicted his entire business will be shattered and this will affect the tourism business of the locality also.