MANAGING DIRECTOR Vs. KAILASAN K.C

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Standing counsel for revision petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for respondent.

(2.) Revision petitioners are the respondents in R.C.P No.50 of 2016 before the Rent Control Court, Kozhikode, where the respondents secured an order of eviction under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (in short 'the Act'). Admittedly, the plaint schedule building belongs to the respondent. The petitioners are running a "Maveli Store" in the petition schedule building. According to the averments in the eviction petition, the respondent/landlord wanted to start a business in copra and other hill produces for eking out a livelihood. He, an ex-service man, is supporting a family consisting of wife and children with his meagre pension. The respondent would contend that a suitable building for the revision petitioners could be found out in the vicinity. It is also relevant to note that the revision petitioners cannot claim the protection of second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act.

(3.) The Rent Control Court, after considering oral and documentary evidence adduced before him, found that the respondent failed to establish a bona fide need. It is pertinent to note that the respondent alone testified by asserting his case and there is no contra evidence adduced by the revision petitioners.