A. KUMARAN Vs. MADAMBILLATH SUBAIDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondents.

(2.) Revision petitioner is aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the authorities below that he is liable to be evicted under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (in short 'the Act'),

(3.) Respondents are co-owners in respect of the petition schedule room. Admittedly, the revision petitioner is the tenant. Respondents contended that vacant possession of the petition schedule building is RCR No.361 of 2018 3 required for conducting a business for and on behalf of the husband of the first respondent, who is dependent on her. It is also contended that they have no other building to start the business for the first respondent's husband. Further, they would contend that other suitable buildings are available in the locality for the revision petitioner/tenant to shift his business. It is the further case of the respondents that the tenant has other sources of income.