IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH JUNE 2011 / 25TH JYAISHTA 1933 RCRev..No. 216 of 2011() ------------------------ RCA.76/2008 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY ALAPPUZHA. RCP.55/2005 of RENT CONTROL COURT ,ALAPPUZHA .................... REVN.PETITIONER/APPELLANT/COUNTER PETITIONER ---------------------------------------------------------------- SEBASTIAN A.J., AGED 35 YEARS, ARRESSERIL HOUSE, PATHIRAPPALLY, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------ C.P.SHAJIKUMAR, AGED 42 YEARS, CHIRAYIL HOUSE, PATHIRAPPALLY, ALAPPUZHA-688 521. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No. 216 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 15th day of June, 2011 O R D E R Balakrishnan, J. The tenant is in revision. The order of eviction passed concurrently under Section 11(3) of the Act (bona fide need for occupation of the petition schedule building) is challenged in this revision. The landlord sought eviction for conducting a barber shop in the petition schedule building, which is at present stated to be conducted by him in a rented building. Though it was contended that the landlord has another building of his own, it has come out in evidence that the other building belongs to the brother of the landlord. There is no case for the tenant that the landlord is having any other building or that he is having any other avocation. Accepting the evidence tendered by the landlord, the Rent Control Court found that the need projected is bona fide. 2. On a reappraisal of the evidence, the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority also concurred with the order of RCR.No.216/2011 2 eviction passed by the Rent Control Court. 3. Smt.Bhavana, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner argued in extenso projecting all the grounds urged in the revision petition. Though it is contended that the claim for eviction is only a pretext for eviction, the evidence shows otherwise. The tenant could not prove that he is entitled to the benefit of the second proviso to section 11(3) of the Act. There is no illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the finding entered by the courts below. The order of eviction passed by the courts below is only to be upheld. The result therefore is that the revision fails and the same is dismissed. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE dpk