VELAYUDHAN Vs. SANTOSH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A tenant against whom order of eviction under Sub-section 8 of Section 11 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1965 has been concurrently passed by the rent control court and the appellate authority is the revision petitioner. The petition schedule building is portion of larger building and admittedly the first respondent/landlord is in occupation of certain portions of the said building and is conducting hotel business in those portions by the name "Lunch House".

(2.) The need projected by the landlord was that there is no sufficient convenience in the rooms under his occupation, for him to conduct the lunch house business and to accommodate the customers who are coming to take lunch. According to the landlord, there is necessity to expand the hotel business and for that, sufficient convenience is to be arranged for storage of food materials, fire wood etc. etc. The landlord has simultaneously instituted petitions for eviction on the same ground against the tenants in occupation of the other portions of the larger building.

(3.) The rent control court on an evaluation of the evidence which came on record became inclined to pass order of eviction under Sub-section 8 of Section 11 only against the revision petitioner who was the 7th respondent in the rent control petition and also against the 8th respondent. The eviction was declined against the other respondents. Eviction was declined against respondents 1 to 6 mainly on the reason that they are entitled to the protection of the first proviso to Sub-section l0 of Section 11 and to a certain extent due to the reason that the landlord had not succeeded in establishing that he requires the portions occupied by those tenants also, for accomplishing the avowed need for additional accommodation.