MOOSA VANNATHAMKANDIYIL Vs. REMLA KAKKAMVELLI PEEDIKAYIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the tenant, who is confronting with an order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court under Sec.11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (for short "the Act"), which stands confirmed in appeal. The landlady averred that the petition schedule shop room is required for starting a hotel business. According to her, her husband was working abroad, but now he has returned and at present he has no avocation for livelihood. Similarly her son Abdul Latheef has also no job or income. The petitioner is also having no other independent income. So the petitioner, her husband and their son have decided to start a hotel in the petition schedule shop rooms.

(2.) The tenant resisted the said contention contending that the landlord have so many other sources of income and the husband of the petitioner is conducting hotel business at Bangalore. Therefore the need projected in the petition is only a ruse for eviction.

(3.) On the aforesaid rival pleadings both parties adduced evidence and after evaluating the evidence on record the Rent Control Court found that the need projected in the petition is a bona fide one and the petition is not hit by the 1st proviso to Sec.11(3) of the Act. It was also found that the tenant is not entitled to get protection under the 2nd proviso to Sec.11(3) of the Act. Thus the legality and propriety of the concurrent findings are assailed in this Revision Petition.