MANDAL GOPALAN Vs. ROHINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant is the revision petitioner. R. C. P. No. 273 of 1972 was filed against him for eviction on three grounds. The petition was dismissed. In appeal, the appellate authority confirmed the order of the Rent Control Court . However, in revision the District Judge, Tellicherry, ordered eviction under s. 11 (8) of the Act. This revision petition challenges the said order.

(2.) COUNSEL for the revision petitioner contended that the revisional Court had, in reversing the orders of the appellate authority and the Rent Control Court exceeded the jurisdiction vested in it under S. 20 of the Act. It was further contended that the order was bad since all the ingredients necessary for ordering eviction under S. H (8) were not proved by the landlord. A new contention was raised before me that the building sought to be evicted is one separate building as defined in the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control)Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, in a row of 7 rooms and it cannot be said that the building in question is a part of the building occupied by the landlord. I shall examine these questions separately.

(3.) IN Para. 2 of the petition, it is stated that the building belongs to a tavazhi and the first respondent is filing the application on behalf of the tavazhi. The bona fide need is stated in Para. 3 as follows: The relevant prayer is, prayer (a), which reads as follows. It is, therefore, clear that the petition was filed on behalf of the tavazhi and eviction was sought for the 2nd respondent to stock his things connected with the developing trade. The payer is eviction for the petitioners.