K.A.PREM Vs. MADHU K.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioners are the tenants, who are confronting with an order of eviction passed against them under Section 11(8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965 [Hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act'] by the Rent Control Court and affirmed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority. The building consists of three floors and the tenants are in occupation of one room on the first floor and the entire remaining portion of the building, on the ground floor, first floor and the 2nd floor is in occupation of the landlord and he is conducting a shop by name KPK and Sons. It is a business of selling glass, plywood, laminated sheets and hardwares. He claimed eviction of the tenants stating that the space presently under his occupation is not sufficient for his business and that he bona fide requires the petition schedule room under the occupation of the respondents/ tenants, in the first floor, for additional accommodation.

(2.) The tenants resisted the claim for eviction contending that the need for additional accommodation is not bona fide. According to them, major portion of the building in the occupation of the landlord is being used for dumping waste materials and it would go to show that the need is not bona fide. Earlier, the landlord obtained vacant possession of the first floor by evicting another tenant. But the said space was not used for the purpose stated in that petition. The first respondent is conducting a law firm in the tenanted premises and it is his only source of income for his livelihood. Therefore, the hardship, which may be caused to the tenants, in the event of eviction, would certainly outweigh the advantage to the landlord. Thus, they prayed for dismissal of the petition.

(3.) On the rival pleadings, both parties adduced evidence and after considering the evidence on record, the Rent Control Court found that the need for additional accommodation is bona fide and the hardship, which may be caused to the tenants, would not outweigh the advantage to the landlord, by the order of eviction. In appeal, the appellate authority re-appreciated the evidence on record and affirmed the aforesaid findings of the Rent Control Court as such without any interference and dismissed the appeal. Thus, the legality and propriety of the concurrent findings of the courts below have come up in revision before us.