N. S. SURESH Vs. SAKEENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since all these revision petitions are directed against a common judgment passed in R.C.A.75/2016 and 74/2016 and another judgment passed in R.C.A.242/2016 and the parties are common, all these revision petitions are heard together and disposed of accordingly. Parties are referred to as in the Rent Control Petition.

(2.) The respondents are tenants occupying different shop rooms in a building and the Rent Control Petitions were filed against the respondents under Section 11(3) of Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. According to the petitioners, they bona fide need the Petition Schedule shop rooms for starting the super market for the avocation of the 3rd petitioner. The 3rd petitioner had completed his MBA and is residing with the other petitioners. He has no job or income for his livelihood. The other petitioners are willing to give the rooms to the 3rd petitioner for his proposed business. The petitioners are not in possession of any other suitable rooms for the proposed business. They have issued the eviction proceedings against the remaining tenants in the building.

(3.) The respondents resisted the bona fides of the need contending that it is false and a pretext for eviction only. According to them, the Petition Schedule shop rooms are situated in an unimportant area and the petitioners have several properties of their own and they are receiving huge income from them. The bona fide need is put forward with the mala fide intention to evict the respondents from the Petition Schedule shop room. It is specifically contended that the entire up stair portion and one room in the ground floor are lying vacant in the Petition Schedule building and thereby the bona fide is hit by the 1st proviso to Section 11(3)of the Act.