SARAFUDHEEN Vs. HAMSA MOULAVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Revision Petitioner is the tenant against whom an order of eviction has been passed under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (for short, "the Act") which stands confirmed in appeal. According to the petitioner/landlord, the Petition Schedule shop room is required for starting a super market and he has no avocation for his livelihood. The building is situated in a commercially important area and he has no other shop room in his possession to start the said super market. The respondent/landlord is not depending upon the income from the barber shop in the Petition Schedule shop room and so many other rooms are available in the locality to conduct his barber shop. The respondent/tenant resisted the claim for eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act contending that the need projected in the RCR.313/2017 petition is a pretext for eviction only. The respondent/landlord has send a notice demanding enhancement for rent and the tenant was not willing to enhance the rent and that prompted him to file the present petition seeking eviction under the guise of bana fide need. He is a physically disabled person depending upon the income from the barber shop. The landlord is an aged man and physically unable to do any business. The sons of landlord are also settled in foreign countries. He is entitled to get protection under the 2nd proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act as no other alternative buildings are available in the locality to shift his business. On the aforesaid contention, both parties adduced evidence and the courts below concurrently found that the need projected in the petition is bona fide and the respondent is not entitled to get protection under the 2nd proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

(3.) The scope and extent of interference under the RCR.313/2017 revisional jurisdiction is confined to legality, propriety and regularity of the findings of the courts below only and the revision is not an appeal in disguise. Keeping the above view we have scrutinized the legality and propriety of the concurrent findings of the courts below.