EDAPARUTHI SATHEESH KUMAR Vs. NAJKABI SHIHABUDDIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed challenging the concurrent findings whereby an order of eviction was under Sections 11(3) and 11(4)(iii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, (hereinafter referred to as the "Act" for short) against the revision petitioner herein. The revision petitioner is the respondent/tenant in R.C.P.No.121/2013 of the Rent Control Court, Kozhikode and the appellant in R.C.A.No.206/2016 of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kozhikode.

(2.) The respondents herein filed R.C.P.No.121/2013 before the Rent Control Court, Kozhikode seeking an order of eviction against the revision petitioner herein under Section 11(3), 11(4)(ii) and 11(4) (iii) of the Act. According to the respondents, they bonafide need the petition schedule building for starting an Automobile Spare Parts and Accessories business for respondents 2 and 3. They have no other vacant buildings of their own to start the said business and several other vacant rooms are available in the locality to shift the business from the petition schedule building. Further, it is averred that the revision petitioner has used the building in such a manner as to destroy or reduce its value for utility of the building materially and permanently and the revision petitioner has subsequently acquired possession of a reasonably sufficient building very near to the petition schedule building. The revision petitioner filed objection disputing the bonafide need projected in the petition and denying the allegation that he has used the building in such manner as to destroy or reduce its value or utility and he subsequently acquired possession of another building very near to the petition schedule building.

(3.) Both parties adduced evidence and after considering the evidence on record, the Rent Control Court passed an order of eviction under Section 11(3) and 11(4) (iii) of the Act, but rejected the claim under Section 11(4) (ii) of the Act. Though the revision petitioner had preferred the aforesaid appeal, the Appellate Authority also concurred with the findings of the Rent Control Court. Thus, the legality and propriety of the concurrent findings of the courts below have come up in this Rent Control Revision petition.