A. K. Mathur, J. - (1.) This appeal is directed against the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala whereby the Division Bench by its order dated 9-11-2001 has affirmed the finding of the appellate Court directing eviction of the tenant under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") and denying eviction to the landlord under Sections 11(4) (i) and 11 (4) (ii) of the Act and dismissed both the revision petitions.
(2.) Brief facts which are necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the building in question was owned by a joint Hindu family of which Nagjee Amarsee was the senior most member. He had a younger brother, Purushotham Amarsee. Nagjee Amarsee had a son, Jayananthan Amarsee. Purushotham Amarsee had three sons, one of whom died at the age of 20. He had two surviving sons namely, Naranjee and Makeklal. There was a partnership firm consisting of the members of the joint family. The building in question was let out to the firm. The firm was the tenant and later on it was converted into a private limited company. In a partition, the major portion of the building was allotted to the group represented by the landlords. Gradually, the interest of the landlords in the company was taken over by the members of the family representing the tenants group. The property scheduled to the rent control petition was a major portion of the building which was admittedly set apart to the share of the branch of the family represented by the landlords. The landlords filed a suit for eviction on the ground that the respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 9 (herein) had completed their education and were sitting idle and they wanted to start business of their own in the scheduled building and they needed the scheduled building for their own occupation at Calicut. Therefore, they claimed eviction of the tenant under Section 11 (3) of the Act. They also pleaded the ground of sub-letting to a tailor who was impleaded as a party in the rent control proceedings. It was pleaded that sub-letting was unauthorized and without the consent of the landlords. Hence, the landlords were entitled for eviction under Section 11 (4) (i) of the Act. They also alleged material alteration in building and sought a decree under Section 11(4) (ii) of the Act. The tenant resisted the eviction petition and pleaded that he was perpetual lessee and could not be evicted by the landlords. He also denied the bona fide need of plaintiffs and denied alteration in the premises in question. It was also pleaded that the tenancy has commenced prior to 1940. As such, the tenant could not be evicted on the ground of bona fide need by virtue of Section 11 (17) of the Act. The tenant contested that the landlords were not entitled to an order of eviction. The parties led evidence before the Rent Controller. The Rent Control Court held that the landlords were not entitled to an order of eviction either under Section 11(3) of the Act or under Section 11 (4) (i) of the Act. The landlords preferred an appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority on re-appraisal of the relevant evidene came to the conclusion that the landlords had made out a claim for eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act on the ground of bona fide need for their own occupation but they could not substantiate their claim for eviction under Sections 11(4) (i) and 11 (4) (ii) of the Act. Thus, the appellate authority partly allowed the appeal filed by the landlords and granted a decree of eviction on the ground of bona fide need under Section 11 (3) of the Act while the plea of sub-letting and material change in premises under Sections 11(4) (i) and 11 (4) (ii) of the Act was declined. Both the landlords and the tenant filed revision petitions i.e. the landlords revision petition was for decree of eviction on the ground of sub-letting and alteration in premises under Sections 11(4) (i) and 11 (4) (ii) of the Act and the tenant filed the revision petition against the eviction on the ground of bona fide need of the landlords under Section 11(3) of the Act. Hence, both the revision petitions were clubbed together and were disposed of by the Division Bench of the High Court by its order dated 9-11-2001. Hence, the present appeal against the aforesaid order passed by the High Court.
(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant challenged the finding of the appellate authority as well as the High Court with regard to the bona fide need of the landlords and secondly he also sought protection under Section 11 (17) of the Act that the appellant tenant had been in possession of premises since 1940, therefore, appellant is entitled to protection under Section 11 (17) of the Act.;