LAWS(KER)-2017-11-230

N.SADANANDA Vs. JAYANTHI

Decided On November 17, 2017
N.Sadananda Appellant
V/S
JAYANTHI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the tenant who is confronting with an order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court under Section 11(8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short 'the Act'), which stands confirmed in appeal, without any interference. Thus, the legality and propriety of the concurrent findings of the courts below under Section 11(8) of the Act granting an order of eviction have come up in revision before us. The landlord filed the Rent Control Petition under Section 11(8) of the Act with averments that 'A' schedule room which is in occupation of the tenant and the adjacent shop room which is occupied by the petitioner form a part of the same building. The petitioner bona fide requires the tenanted premises for the extension of his existing grocery business. The respondent resisted the claim for additional accommodation contending that there is no requirement for additional accommodation as the shop room, in which the petitioner is conducting the grocery business, is sufficient for the said business. Further, he claimed that the hardship that may be caused to him, if an order of eviction is passed, would outweigh the advantage to the petitioner.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.

(3.) The learned counsel for the respondents/tenants submits that the requirement of expansion was not pleaded or proved by the petitioner. When the 3rd petitioner was examined as PW1, he admitted that he does not intend to add more items in his business and the said statement would amount to an admission which would negate the requirement of expansion. Further, he himself admitted that if an order of eviction is passed, that may cause hardship to the tenant. But the courts below have omitted to consider the aforesaid evidence in its correct perspective while considering the bona fides of the requirement. It is also contended that the tenanted premises and the shop room in occupation of the landlord do not form a part of the same building in view of the decision in Gangaram v. N.Shankar Reddy (1988 (4) SCC 648).