KURIAN K KURIAKOSE Vs. USHA CHERIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant challenges the concurrent findings of the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965(hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

(2.) The principal contention raised by the tenant in this Revision is that the landlord has not pleaded in the Rent Control Petition that the tenant is not depending for his livelihood mainly on the income derived from the business carried on in the petition schedule building and that there is suitable building available in the locality for the tenant to carry on the business, in order to deny to the tenant the benefit of the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. According to the tenant, lack of necessary pleading in this behalf in the Rent Control Petition would have the effect of taking away the burden of proof on the tenant to prove the ingredients of the 2nd proviso to section 11(3). The petitioner also contends that the courts below have not properly considered the pleadings and evidence in the case and the contention of the tenant that the landlord has let out another room to a relative within a short period before the filing of the Rent Control petition. The tenant also raised a contention that the landlords are residing in Bangalore and the need put forward is a ruse to evict the tenant.

(3.) The Rent Control Petition was filed under Section 11(3) of the Act. The Rent Control Court allowed the Rent control Petition. Another Rent Control Petition filed by the same petitioners in respect of the adjoining room was also tried along with the present Rent Control Petition. On appeal by the tenant, the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the Rent Control Court.