PRABHAKARAN V. Vs. M.A MAMMEDKOYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed against the concurrent findings of the courts below, granting an order of eviction, under Sec. 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings(Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The parties are referred to as in the Rent Control Petition.

(2.) According to the petitioners, the 2nd petitioner bona fide needs the vacant possession of the petition schedule building, to start a paint and hardware shop. They have no other buildings of their own in their possession to start the said business. But, several other vacant buildings are available in the locality, to shift the business of the respondent from the tenanted premises. The respondent is not mainly depending upon the income from the business carried on in the petition schedule building. On the above premises, the petitioners prayed for an order of eviction under Sec. 11(3) of the Act.

(3.) The respondent resisted the claim for eviction under Sec. 11(3) of the Act, contending that the need projected in the petition is not bona fide. Further, he contended that he is one of the co-owners of the petition schedule building and he became a co-owner by way of purchasing the undivided share of the 3rd petitioner, by virtue of the assignment deed No.2290/1986. He is taking steps to file a suit for partition of the petition schedule building, in view of the said assignment deed executed by the 3rd petitioner in his favour. He further contended that by virtue of the aforesaid sale deed executed by the 3rd petitioner in his favour, the landlord-tenant relationship has ceased to exist. Therefore, the present petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts. Hence, he prayed for the dismissal of the petition, mainly on the ground that the rent control petition itself is not maintainable.