T THANUJA SUNDERDAS Vs. SURYAMKANDI SISIRKUMAR RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners herein are the tenants in a petition for eviction filed under Sections 11(3) and 11(4)(i) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965 (herein after referred to as the Act ). The Rent Control Court allowed eviction of the premises - a non-residential building - under Section 11(3) of the Act. The appeal filed by the revision petitioners herein before the Appellate Authority having been dismissed, they have approached this Court by filing this revision petition under Section 20 of the Act.

(2.) The respondents herein who are the landlords, sought eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act on the ground that their father Rajarathnam wants to start a stationery business and for the said purpose they are in need of the petition schedule building. It was contended that for starting the said business, the petitioners or their father have no other buildings in their possession. The tenants mainly contended that there are no other buildings available in the locality for their occupation if they are evicted and there are no other income also for them. They denied the allegation of subletting. The bonafide need pleaded for conduct of business by the father of the landlords was also disputed.

(3.) When the matter was heard on an earlier occasion, a Division Bench of this Court as per a detailed order dated 6.9.2005 referred the matter for being considered by a Full Bench. The question that was referred before the Full Bench related to the burden of proof to be discharged by the tenant under the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. The matter was considered in the light of the decisions of two Division Benches of this Court in Kochappan Pillai v. Chellappan,1976 KIT 1 and Sadanandan v. Kunheen,1991 2 KLT 628. The Full Bench answered the reference as per order dated 17.7.2006 and thus the matter has come back for being heard on the merits.