ABOOBACKER Vs. PRABHAKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is filed under S. 20 of the Kerala buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter called as 'the Act')against the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority in R. C. A. No. 83 of 1989. Petitioners in R. C. P. No. 124 of 1985 are the petitioners in this revision petition. The Rent Control Petition was filed under S. 11 (3) and 11 (4) (i) of the Act.

(2.) THERE are two petitioners in the R. C. P. The bona fide need alleged was that the first petitioner was doing business in Bombay on the road side. The Bombay Corporation has prohibited such vending and hence, he has to come back to Thalassery and he wants to start a business in the room occupied by the respondent. Further contention was that the respondent/tenant is conducting a cycle shop in the room. But he is using it in such a way that there is diminution in its value and utility. It is on the above allegation that the petition was filed.

(3.) ON the basis of the pleadings, parties went for trial. Exts. A1 to A3 were marked on the side of the petitioners. Exts. B1 to B3 were filed on the side of the respondent. Ext. C1 is the commission report. PWs. 1 and 2 were examined on the side of the petitioners, while RWs. 1 and 2 were marked on the side of the respondent. The Rent Control Court found that the bona fide need alleged is not true. Further, it also held against the landlords regarding the ground under S. 11 (4) (ii) of the Act. But it found that the tenant is not entitled to the benefit of the Second Proviso. Thus, the R. C. P. was dismissed. The landlords preferred appeal before the Appellate Authority as r. C. A. No. 83 of 1989. The Rent Control Appellate Authority upheld the findings of the Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal. It is against that the present revision is filed.