KRISHNAN Vs. VIKRAMAN NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the tenant who is confronting with an order of eviction passed under Sec.11 (8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (for short 'the Act'). According to the landlord, he is conducting a tyre retreading business in the shop room situated adjacent to the petition schedule shop room. The petition schedule shop room is required for expanding the said business. Hence, he filed an application under Sec.11 (8) of the Act. The respondent resisted the requirement of additional accommodation contending that it is a pretext for eviction only. According to the respondent, the petitioner has sufficient space for his business in the shop room in his possession. So also it is contended that he is depending upon the income from his barber saloon in the petition schedule shop room and if an order of eviction is passed, he will be put to hardships as he has no other avocation at all. Thus, the respondent contended that the hardships that may be caused to him would outweigh the advantage to the petitioner.

(2.) On the aforesaid rival contentions both parties adduced evidence oral and documentary and after considering the evidence on record, the trial court dismissed the application on a finding that the claim for additional accommodation is not a bona fide one and if an order of eviction is passed, the hardships that may be caused to the respondent would outweigh the advantage to the landlord. But in appeal, the appellate authority reappreciated the evidence on record and reversed the aforesaid finding and allowed the appeal. Thus, this revision petition is filed challenging the legality and propriety of the divergent findings of the courts below under Sec.11 (8) of the Act.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner.