JOSE Vs. ANTONY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Tenants are the revision petitioners. Eviction was sought for by the respondent -landlord Under Section 11(8) of Act 2 of 1965. Tenanted premises form part of a two storeyed building. Landlord is occupying northernmost room on the ground floor. Tenant in C.R.P. No. 1700 of 2002 is occupying southernmost room in the ground floor. Tenant in C.R.P.No. 1745 of 2002 is occupying middle room in the ground floor. Upstair portion is in the occupation of the tenant in G.R.P, No. 1750 of 2002. Building is facing the main road situated near a bus stand. Landlord is carrying on hotel business by name "Aiswarya Restaurant". Landlord purchased the building in the year 1995 while he was tenant of the building along with other tenants, He bona fide required the tenanted premises for expansion of his hotel business and for additional accommodation for the existing hotel.

(2.) Tenants resisted the petition contending that the need is not bona fide and there is no necessity of additional accommodation. Further they also stated that the attempt of the landlord is for getting enhanced rent. Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence concurrently found that the need urged by the landlord is genuine and bona fide. We find no reason to hold otherwise in our revisional jurisdiction.

(3.) Rent Control Court however rejected the claim of the landlord under the first proviso to Section11(10) since it was satisfied that the hardship that may be caused to the tenants by granting eviction will outweigh the advantage to the landlord. It would be profitable to extract the reasoning of the Rent Control Court in its own words.