M. HARIS Vs. K.P. SURENDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant in respect of the building involved in R.C.P No.126/2014 on the files of the Rent Control Court, Kozhikode comes up in revision on being aggrieved by the concurrent findings under section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short 'the Act') by the authorities below. The respondent landlord filed the said rent control petition under sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act. There is no dispute regarding the tenancy. The landlord sought for ejectment of the tenant, the revision petitioner from the petition schedule shoproom citing the bona fide need of it to start a hardware business.

(2.) The revision petitioner resisted the contentions mainly contending that the need projected sans bona fides and it is nothing but a ruse to evict him from the tenanted shoproom. It is to be noted that in the rent control petition, eviction was also sought for on the ground of arrears of rent. The revision petitioner contended that there is absolutely no rent arrears. He had also taken up a contention that the respondent landlord is a well known business man in the locality and he is conducting busines in the brand name 'Parthasaradi' and therefore, there is no necessity for him to start a hardware business. Further it was contended that many shop rooms are available in his possession.

(3.) Before the Rent Control Court, the revision petitioner herein and the respondent were examined respectively as RW1 and PW1. On the side of the landlord, Exts.A1 and A2 were marked and on the side of the revision petitioner, Exts.B1 to B5 were got marked. As noticed hereinbefore, it is after evaluation of the evidence on record and appreciating the rival contentions that the Rent Control Court had passed order of eviction in favour of the respondent landlord under section 11(3) of the Act. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner herein had taken up the matter in appeal as R.C.A.No.93/2016. The Rent Control Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal as per the impugned judgment. It is in such circumstances that the captioned revision petition has been filed.