PIUS Vs. ALBINA ROZARIO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is the tenant of a residential building belonging to the first respondent. The landlady applied for eviction of the petitioner on the grounds of arrears of rent, and bona fide need for own occupation, for her residence, falling under subsections (2) and (3) of S. 11 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (the Act ). Her case was that she was now residing with her daughter in the absence of any other house of her own in Cannanore, where this building was situate. The building occupied by the daughter belonged to the Communist Party of India, and a petition r. c. p. no. 141 of 1983 was pending in the Rent Control court, Cannanore for eviction of the daughter. The landlady therefore needed the petition schedule building for her occupation, and the petition was accordingly laid for eviction on the grounds mentioned above,.

(2.) THE petitioner contested the claim, inter alia with the plea that the landlady had earlier filed a petition R. C. P. No. 41 of 1980 for eviction, which was dismissed for default. THE bonafides of the landlady's claim was therefore suspect. She was an affluent person, whose children, except a daughter, were all in Canada. She herself had been out of Cannanore for long, since her marriage in 1935, and was not therefore likely to occupy the building in question, which was not suited for her requirements.

(3.) THE Appellate Authority and the Revisional Court however chose to differ. THE Appellate Authority noted that the landlady did not have any other house in Cannanore which she could occupy. She was staving with her daughter in the town. A petition for eviction was pending against the daughter. Her daughter's landlord was the Communist Party of India and the genuineness of that application for eviction could not be doubted. THE dismissal of the earlier application R. C. P. No. 41 of 1980 did not warrant the conclusion that the landlady had settled down in a foreign country. THE landlady's need and its bonafides were therefore upheld. THE appeal was allowed ordering eviction on the ground of bonafide need for own occupation.