AMBIKA, C. Vs. PADMANABHAN, K. AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant came up with this Rent Control Revision aggrieved by the concurrent findings of both the Rent Control Court and the Rent Control Appellate Authority under Sections 11(2)(b), 11(3), 11 (4)(i) and 11(4)(ii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short 'the Act').

(2.) The need projected in the application is for the own occupation of the landlord to start a book stall. The tenant raised objection mainly on the ground that the petition schedule shop room is not suitable for commencing a book stall because of the running of a beverages outlet just in front of the said shop room. It was also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is a place wherein drunkards alone used to come. As such, the running of a book stall in the petition schedule shop room would result in heavy loss. The suitability of a building for the own occupation of the landlord is the prerogative of the landlord, unless it is tainted by malice and ill will.

(3.) The question of availability of an alternative accommodation for the landlord under the first proviso to Sec. 11(3) of the Act has not been raised as a ground of defence. So, the concurrent findings of both the Rent Control Court and the Rent Control Appellate Authority regarding the bona fides of the need advanced deserves no interference by this Court.