PONALI SURENDRAN Vs. P M MAMMOOTTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant is in revision against the concurrent findings of the rent control court and the appellate authority ordering eviction on the ground of bona fide need urged by the landlord under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The rent control petition was filed invoking grounds under Section 11 (3) and 11(4)(iii) of the Act. The courts below concurrently found that the landlord was not successful in establishing the ground under Section 11 (4)(iii). But the Rent Control Court found that the bona fide need projected by the landlord for starting his own business in footwears is well-established. The appellate authority confirmed the findings.

(2.) Heard Sri R. Surendran, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner at length. The main contention is against the findings of the courts below with respect to the First Proviso to Section 11 (3). We have the opportunity to peruse copy of the rent control petition, the objections filed by the tenant, and the depositions of P.W. 1 and R.W. 1. The specific pleading of the landlord was that, he is not having any other vacant building in his direct possession. On the contrary, the objection of the tenant was that, there are many vacant rooms in the possession of the landlord in the same locality. Apart from the general nature of pleadings and counter pleadings, the tenant had not pointed out any particular building allegedly in the possession of the landlord.

(3.) The learned counsel for the revision petitioner had drawn our attention to the deposition of P.W. 1. In cross-examination, landlord deposed as follows: <IMG>judgement_124_ilr(ker)2_2009_NP_124_ILR(KER)2_2009.jpg</IMG>