SUNNY Vs. JAMALUDIEN

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) Revision petitioner is a building tenant under the respondent/land lord. Respondent/land lord filed two rent control petitions seeking eviction of two tenants in the building claiming right to occupy the building on bonafide need and also on arrears of rent. It is the submission that other tenant, who suffered an order of eviction, had surrendered the building to the land lord. It is an admitted case that the building is an old one with three rooms on the ground floor. It is the case of the land lord/respondent that he wanted to start hotel business in the premises after getting vacant possession of the entire ground floor. It is also his case that he was doing a hotel business before he had gone abroad in pursuit of an employment. It is his definite case that he has come back to his native place and wanted to start a hotel business again in the building.

(3.) The revision petitioner/tenant opposed the contention of the land lord/respondent by saying that the need put forward is not bonafide and only a ruse to evict him. The revision petitioner also claimed protection under second provisos to Section 11(3) under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (in short 'the Act'). These contentions of the revision petitioner were repelled by the courts below concurrently and granted an order of eviction in favour of the respondent under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act. Of course, order of eviction under Section 11(2)(b) of the Act does not now survive for consideration, as the revision petitioner has paid off all the arrears of rent.