PULIKKATHODI ALI Vs. MATHEW JOSE PUTHIYA KUNNEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Revision petitioner is the tenant who suffered an order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (for short 'the Act'). Though he had preferred an appeal, before the Appellate Authority, the Appellate Authority also affirmed the findings of the Rent Control Court and dismissed the appeal. Thus, this revision petition is directed against the legality and propriety of the concurrent findings of the courts below under Section 11(3) of the Act. The parties in this order are referred as in the Rent Control Petition.

(2.) According to the petitioner, the petition schedule building is situated facing Mananthavadi-Mysore road, on the southern side. An extent of 12 cents of land is lying vacant in the northern side of the petition schedule building. The petitioner wants to utilize that vacant property gainfully. But no access is available to that property. Thus, the petitioner bona fide needs the petition schedule road to make an access to the back portion of the said property, after demolishing the petition schedule building.

(3.) The respondent resisted the aforesaid contention contending that the need projected in the petition is a pretext for eviction only. The petitioner was aware of the vacant possession of the property even at the time of entrustment of the building under lease to the respondent. It is impossible to make an access to the said property as averred by the petitioner. The petitioner can easily cut and open a road through the western side of the petition schedule building. He is entitled to get protection under the 2nd proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act as he is depending mainly on the income from the business in the petition schedule building and no alternative buildings are available in the locality to shift his business.