M SUBRAMANIAN Vs. A M AMMATHUL HAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner/ tenant is the respondent and the respondent/ landlord is the petitioner in RCP. No.160/2015 of the Rent Control Court, Kozhikode. (The parties are referred to as in the Rent Control Petition). The aforesaid rent control petition was filed under Section 11(4)(iii) and 5(1) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), seeking an order of eviction and fixation of fair rent. It is averred in the rent control petition that the respondent was conducting the business of manufacturing aluminium vessels in the petition schedule shop room and now the respondent has acquired another building at West Hill and started business therein and the said building is sufficient for his requirements. Since the respondent has acquired another building, the petitioner is entitled to get an order of eviction, under Section 11(4)(iii) of the Act. The respondent resisted the said claim for eviction denying the acquisition of another building at West Hill. According to him, he is a partner of the firm by name 'M/s. Burma Metal Mart' functioning in the building situated at West Hill. He has not acquired possession of or constructed any building of his own at West Hill. The respondent is not having any other shop room in his possession. With the aforesaid contentions, the respondent prayed for dismissal of the rent control petition.

(2.) Both parties adduced evidence and after considering the evidence on record, the Rent Control Court found that the petitioner has successfully proved the acquisition of another building by the respondent at West Hill and thereby the petitioner is entitled to get an order of eviction, under Section 11(4)(iii) of the Act. Feeling aggrieved, though the respondent preferred RCA No.36/2017 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kozhikode, the Appellate Authority also concurred with the aforesaid finding of the Rent Control Court and dismissed the Appeal. The legality and propriety of the aforesaid findings are assailed in this revision petition.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.