N VALSALAN Vs. MALAYADATH KANDATH SHARADA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The legality and proprietary of the concurrent findings of the courts below granting an order of eviction to the respondent herein under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (herein after referred to as the 'Act') have come up in this revision before us. The parties are referred to as in the Rent Control Petition.

(2.) According to the petitioner in R.C.P. No.16/2008, he bonafide needs the petition schedule shop room for starting a bakery-cum-cool bar for his son. His son was an auto rickshaw driver, but at present he has no job as he has stopped driving of auto rickshaw due to his bad health condition and his auto rickshaw became very old and useless. Now he wants to seek an avocation for his livelihood. He has no other vacant rooms of his own in his possession. But, several other other vacant rooms are available in the locality to shift the business of the respondent from the tenanted premises.

(3.) The respondent resisted the claim for eviction contending that, the need projected in the petition is not bonafide and it is a ruse for eviction only. According to the respondent, the petitioner has other vacant rooms in his possession to start the proposed bakery and cool bar. Further it is contended that he is entitled to get a protection under the second proviso to Section 11(3) as he is mainly depending on the income from the tenanted premises and no other alternative vacant buildings are available in the locality.