SARADA OTHERS Vs. M K KUMARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitions are directed against the decision of the District Judge of Kozhikode passed in revision under S. 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (2 of 1965.) M. K. Kumaran, who is the common respondent in both the revision petitions, filed separate petitions for evicting the revision petitioners under S. 11, sub-sections (2) and (3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1959. THE proceedings were continued under the Kerala buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (2 of 1965) in view of S. 34 thereof. S. 11, sub-sections (2) and (3) of Act, 1959 correspond to S. 11, sub-sections (2) and (3) of Act 2 of 1965 and the provisions are identical. THE arguments of the counsel were therefore based on the provisions of Act 2 of 1965 hereinafter referred to as the Act. ' '

(2.) THE respondent is the owner of the building in T. S, no. 14 in Ward No. 18 in Calicut City. THE revision petitioner in CRP. 524 of 1968 is the tenant in occupation of the ground floor of the building while the revision petitioner in CRP. 526 of 1968 is the tenant occupying the first floor of the building. THE grounds on which the respondent sought to evict the revision petitioners are that they committed default in the payment of rent and that he 'bona fide' needs the building for his own occupation. Ex. A-4 is the sketch produced by the respondent along with the petitions. Ex. A-17 is the survey plan showing the lie of T. S. No. 14 and the adjacent survey numbers. Ex. C-1 is the plan and Ex. C-2 is the report filed by the commissioner appointed in the proceedings. Common evidence was adduced in the petitions and they were disposed of by a common judgment.

(3.) THREE grounds were raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. (1) The need of the respondent found by the courts below is different from that pleaded by him in the petitions and the finding of the courts below is therefore vitiated. (2) The bona fide need of the respondent found is not a sufficient ground under S. 11 (3) of the Act. (3) The petitions for eviction should have been dismissed as there is no termination of the tenancy under S. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.