Decided on March 31,2003

SASI Appellant


- (1.) This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the judgment in R.C.A. No.37 of 1999 of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kollam, which in turn arose from the order of the Rent Control Court, Kollam in R.C. (OP) No. 76 of 1997. The Rent Control Petition was filed by the landlady for the eviction of the tenant on the ground of arrears of rent and for bona fide need for own occupation. The ground under S.11(2)(b) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been confirmed by the Appellate Court. Even though in this revision, the attack is made against the order under S.11(2)(b) of the Act, we dont find anything to interfere in the order of the court below.
(2.) The main argument made is against the order of eviction under S.11(3) of the Act. The case of the landlady is that she and her family are residing in brothers house Roopakala and there is no sufficient space there. The petition schedule building is a building belonging to the landlady. It has become old and dilapidated. She wants to demolish the building and put up a new building for her residential purpose and business. This was denied by the tenant. The tenant contended that as a matter of fact, the landlady was residing at Roopakala. The need urged is not bona fide. Further, it is stated that she is employed in Trivandrum along with her husband, who is also employed in Trivandrum. Their children are also studying at Trivandrum.
(3.) On behalf of the landlady, Exts. A1 to A7 were marked. Exts. B1 to B3 were filed on behalf of the tenant. PWs. 1 and 2 were examined on the side of the landlady, while CPWs 1 and 2 were examined on the side of the tenant.;

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