A KUNHIKRISHNAN Vs. RAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the tenant against whom an order of eviction has been passed concurrently, by the courts below, under Section 11(4)(iv) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965 (Hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act'). The respondent has filed RCP.No.18/2014 before the Rent Control Court, under Sections 11(2) (b), 11(3), 11(4)(ii) and 11(4)(iv) of the Act. After considering the objection raised by the petitioner herein and the evidence on record, the Rent Control Court passed the order of eviction, under Sections 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(4)(iv) of the Act only and rejected the claim for eviction, under Section 11(4)(ii) of the Act. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner herein filed RCA.No.9/2016 before the Appellate Authority, Kasargod and the Appellate Authority, after re-appreciating the evidence on record, set aside the order of eviction, passed under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act; but confirmed the order of eviction, passed under Section 11(4)(iv) of the Act only.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner.

(3.) According to the respondent/ landlord, he bona fide needs the petition schedule building for starting a textile business in the petition schedule room after reconstructing the building. As regards the claim for eviction under Section 11(4)(iv), it is the case of the respondent that the petition schedule shop room forms a part of an old, two storied, tiled dilapidated building, situated in a commercially important locality and the petition schedule building requires reconstruction. The building is situated just 1 km. away from Kanhangad town. The respondent has sufficient financial capacity, to reconstruct the building and he has necessary building permit and plan for the same and that he bona fide requires to reconstruct the building.