DILEEP M. Vs. M. SHAILA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant has come up in revision challenging the concurrent findings against him under Sec. 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short, "the Act"). It is the case of the tenant that the courts below have miserably failed to consider material evidence, while evaluating the bona fides of the need. Further, it is contended that, in the R.C(OP), the need projected by the landlady was one for starting a provision store. But, it has come out in evidence that the dependent of the landlady intends to start an electronic goods shop instead of provision store. That apart, earlier, the landlady has filed R.C(OP) No. 6/2006 seeking an order of eviction under Sec. 11(3) of the Act against the same tenant and, in that case, he has surrendered one room, out of two rooms which were in his possession, pursuant to a compromise entered into between the landlady and the tenant and the need projected in that petition was also for starting a provision store. But, after getting vacant possession of one room, the landlady has let out that room to one Mahin. Thus, according to the tenant, the earlier conduct of the landlady would show that there was no bona fides in the same need projected in subsequent petition. But the courts below have omitted to consider the valuable evidence on record, which would negative the bona fides of the claim.

(2.) Per contra, the learned counsel for the landlady submits that even though in the earlier round of litigation the need projected was for starting a provision store and the landlady got vacant possession of one shop room out of two shop rooms which were in the possession of the tenant, she was compelled to assign the said room in favour of her daughter in connection with her marriage. Similarly, it is contended that the landlady has right to change the nature of business, if the business pleaded in the petition is not a feasible one due to subsequent changes.

(3.) Going by the impugned judgment passed by the courts below, it could be seen that in the earlier round of litigation between the same parties, the need projected was also the same and the tenant has surrendered one shop room out of two shop rooms which were in his possession. It has come out in evidence that subsequent to surrender of the said shop room, it was assigned in favour of her daughter and rented out to another person by name Mahin. The landlady has not denied the allegation that after the assignment in favour of the younger daughter the shop room was rented out to a third person, by name Mahin.