NARAYANAN Vs. SUDARSAN TRADING CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Earlier the revision was heard and disposed of on 27-10-1976; but a review petition has now been filed by the respondent stating, inter alia, that the said order really happened to be passed without hearing him, as at that time he had not received notice of the revision petition and the names shown as those of the counsel for the respondent in the cause title were apparently wrong. I am satisfied that the petitioner had no notice of the revision petition at the time when it was heard, and that interests of justice demand a rehearing of the matter. I, therefore, set aside the order that was passed on 27-10-1976 and proceed to consider the matter on merit afresh.

(2.) An order of eviction, against the respondent, passed by the Rent Controller under S.11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, Act 2 of 1965, for short the Act, was reversed by the Subordinate Judge in appeal under S.18 of the Act; and the decision of the Appellate Authority has been confirmed by the District Court on revision under S.20 of the Act. In this further revision under S.115 CPC., the revision petitioner company challenges the legality, regularity and propriety of the order passed by the District Court.

(3.) The petition was under S.11(2), (3) and (4) of the Act. The Rent Control Court, however, appears to have overlooked the contention based on damage, as is evident from the fact that only two questions, one relating to the arrears of rent and the other relating to the bona fide need of the petitioner, were formulated for consideration. On the question of arrears of rent the finding of the Rent Control Court was in favour of the respondent tenant. The order of eviction was based solely on the ground of the revision petitioner's bona fide need for own occupation.