Decided on January 20,2003

NAVU Appellant


- (1.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the judgment in R.C.A. No. 8 of 1991 of the 1st Additional District Court, Palakkad. Tenants have come in revision. R.C.P. No. 60 of 1987 was filed by the landlord. According to the landlord, the petition schedule building was taken on rent by the original tenant for the purpose of his residence. The tenant was a dhobi. So, he was also doing business of laundry in the petition schedule building. The present petition for eviction was filed on the ground of bona fide need for some of the petitioners. According to the petitioner - landlord, his son has married and he wants the petition schedule building for occupation. The Trial Court dismissed the petition stating that the bona fide need is not proved. The Appellate Court held that there was bona fide need and also found that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of the proviso.
(2.) There is another ground for eviction that the respondents - tenants were using the building in such a way to reduce its utility and value. The Rent Control Court, as already stated, found against the bona fide need. The second question was not considered by the Rent Control Court on the ground that the petition was not bona fide. It is against that the appeal was preferred before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court also considered the question of bona fide need and it found that there was bona fide need. It further held that the tenants are not entitled to invoke the Second Proviso to S.11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It is against that the present revision is filed.
(3.) We heard learned counsel for the petitioners Sri. V. Chitambaresh and learned counsel for the respondents Sri. S. Parameswaran.;

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