DILEEPKUMAR Vs. MARY XAVIER
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the landlord challenging the impugned judgment passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority remanding the Rent Control Petition back to the Rent Control Court for considering and disposing the same afresh.
(2.) The Rent Control Petition was filed under Sec.11 (2) (b), 11 (3) and 11 (8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act ('the Act' for short). According to the petitioner he is conducting a textile shop in a shop room which forms a part of the building in which the respondent has been conducting a beauty parlor. The petition schedule room is required for expanding the textile business of the petitioner. The volume of business is increased in many fold. So the present space is not sufficient for conducting the textile shop.
(3.) The respondent resisted the claim under Sec.11 (8) contending that the petitioner is not conducting the textile business and he is employed in the newspaper Manorama daily and his father is conducting the textile business. So he is not entitled to get an order of eviction under Sec.11 (8) of the Act. Further, there are other rooms just behind the petition schedule room for expansion of the business of the petitioner and the petitioner can make use of the space in the petition schedule building for the expansion of his business. According to him, there is no bona fides in the requirement of additional accommodation and the real intention is to kick out him from the petition schedule shop room.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.