RAGHUTHAMAN Vs. P.P. MUHAMMADALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The concurrent finding of the two courts below ordering eviction of the tenant under Section 11 (3) of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1965 (for short the Act) from the scheduled building is challenged by him in this revision invoking power of this Court under Section 20 of the Act.

(2.) The respondent, landlord claimed eviction of the petitioner alleging that his wife needed the building as his dependent, for conducting a tailoring shop. He alleged that she had previous experience in sewing and no other buildings in the locality are in his possession. There is no dispute between parties about the landlord landlord relationship in respect of the petition scheduled building. The petitioner contended that the alleged bonafide need is a ruse for eviction and the landlord has in his possession building for conducting tailoring shop suitable to his alleged need. It was also contended that having regard to the nature of business which is a flour mill conducted in petition scheduled building, suitable building in the locality is not available for shifting the business. He continued to contend that he is depending for his livelihood mainly on the income derived from the petition scheduled building and further he is entitled to the benefit of 2nd proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act.

(3.) Rent control court by its order dated 17.12.2015, ordered eviction under Section 11 (3) of the Act upholding the case of bonafide need set up by the respondent herein and further held that petitioner/tenant is not entitled to the benefit of 2nd proviso to Section 11 (3) of the Act. When the tenant filed appeal as in RCA No.56/2016 also, the order of the Rent Control Court was only upheld which resulted in concurrent finding in favour of the landlord that the building was bonafide required for the occupation of his wife who is a dependent on him. The appellate court also held that the tenant failed to prove that he was depending mainly on the income derived from the flour mill conducted in the petition scheduled building and was entitled to the benefit of 2nd proviso to Section 11 (3) of the Act.