- (1.) In this appeal, by special leave, the order of the Hiah Court of Kerala in CRP No. 95 of 1995 dated 11.10.1996, is brought under challenge.
(2.) The appellants are the tenants of a shop room. The original tenant died and the appellants are his legal representatives (hereinafter they are referred to as 'the tenants"). The respondents are the landlords. They filed an application under sub section (3) of section 11 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short 'the Act') for eviction of the tenants on the ground that they bona fide need the premises for setting up business of their daughter and son in law who are dependent on them. The tenants contested the petition denying that the daughter and son in law are not (sic) dependent on the respondents. The tenants also denied the bona fide requirement of the landlords. The learned Rent Controller having considered the material placed on record found that the need of the landlords was bona fide and accordingly ordered eviction of the tenants on 21.12.1993. An appeal against the said judgment was unsuccessful before the Rent Control Appellate Authority (District Judge), Thalassery. The appeal having been dismissed on 17.11.1994, the tenants filed a revision petition vide CRP No. 95 of 1995 in the High Court of Kerala which was also dismissed by the impugned order. The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the respondents bona fide need the demised premises.
(3.) The respondents filed petition for eviction of the appellant under section 11(3) of the Act which is set out hereunder : " 11. (3) A landlord may apply to the Rent Control Court for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building if he bona fide needs the buildings for his own occupation or for the occupation by any member of his family dependent on him : Provided that the Rent Control Court shall not give any such direction if the landlord has another building of his own in his possession in the same city, town or village except where the Rent Control Court is satisfied that for special reasons, in any particular case it will be just and proper to do so : Provided further that the Rent Control Court shall not give any direction to a tenant to put the landlord in possession, if such tenant is depending for his livelihood mainly on the income derived from any trade or business carried on in such building and there is no other suitable building available in the locality for such person to carry on such trade or business : Provided .... Provided....";