Decided on January 29,2003

FRANCIS Appellant


- (1.) What is the true scope and ambit of the protection available to a tenant under the second proviso to S.11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 Have the courts below erred in granting protection to the respondents on the ground that a suitable building is not available to her in the locality These are the two questions that arise for consideration in this Revision Petition which has been placed before the Full Bench. The facts may be briefly noticed.
(2.) On August 27, 1974 the ground floor of the building in dispute was given on lease for a period of three months to the first respondent. The second respondent is her husband. The monthly rent was fixed at Rs. 350. The premises were given on lease for the purpose of conducting an agency of the Kottakkal Arya Vaidyasala. A copy of the lease deed is on record as Ext.A1.
(3.) In the year 1980, the landlord filed a petition for the eviction of the respondents. It was inter alia alleged that he needed the premises for bona fide personal occupation. It was alleged that the tenant was in possession of another building which was suitable for carrying on business as contemplated under S.11(4)(iii). A copy of the plaint is Ext.A3. In this petition, the Rent Control Court had sustained the landlords claim of bona fide need. However, it was held that in view of the second proviso to S.11(3), the tenant was not liable to be evicted. Still further, it was found that the ingredients of S.11(4)(iii) were not satisfied. Thus, the petition was dismissed. A copy of the judgment is on record as Ext.A - 4. Both sides filed appeals. These were dismissed vide judgment at Ext.A - 5. Even the revision petitions had met with the same fate.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.