T A NAZAR Vs. SABU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful tenants in the statutory appeal filed under the provisions of the Rent Control Act is before us in this revision. For the purpose of convenience we will be referring to the parties in this judgment as Landlord and Tenants.

(2.) Compendiously stated, the rent control petition was instituted by the landlord of the building seeking eviction against the tenants on the ground that he requires the building for the purpose of starting a Panchakarma Clinic and an Alopathy Clinic for the benefit of his children who are depending upon him for such accommodation. The tenants/appellants-herein refuted the assertions of the landlord/respondent-herein on the allegation that the need urged by him is not bona fide and that it is only a ruse or pretext to evict them so to use the building for being let out to other persons. They assert that the landlord was trying to find reasons to evict them for last several years and that they have even gone to the extend of challenging and impeaching the character and conduct of the landlord in their oral testimony.

(3.) The tenants maintain that the mere expression of desire would not be sufficient for a landlord to get an order of eviction and they rely on the judgment of this Court reported in Anandaraja Guptha K. N. v. D. V. Usha Vijaykumar,2008 KHC 5170. The tenants specifically allege that the landlord is in possession of another shop room which can be offered by him to his children for their business if it is so required.