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 17TH AUGUST 2011 / 26TH SRAVANA 1933 RCRev..No. 324 of 2011() ------------------------ RCA.36/2007 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, TRIVANDRUM RCP.62/2001 of RENT CONTROL COURT, TVM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/COUNTER PETITIONER -------------------------------------------------------------------- K.RATHINDRA BAI, T.C. 26/2196 (OLD T.C.NO.27/2405) RATHI MEDICALS, GENERAL HOSPITAL JN., TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.MOHAN JACOB GEORGE SMT.P.V.PARVATHI SMT.REENA THOMAS SRI.L.RAM MOHAN RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS -------------------------- 1. P.MRINALINI DEVI, W/O.LATE SRI.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR, T.C. 29/1259, KALYAN KOZHIYODE LANE, PALKULANGARA, TRIVANDRUM - 695024. 2. R.RAJESH, S/O.LATE SRI.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR, -DO- -DO- 3. M.RAKHI, D/O.LATE SRI.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR, -DO- -DO- THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No.324 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 17th day of August, 2011 O R D E R Balakrishnan, J. The tenant challenges in this revision petition an order of eviction was passed concurrently under Section 11 (3) of the Act. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the courts below have not appreciated the evidence correctly and that the evidence regarding the bona fide need adduced by the respondents is not sufficient to allow the claim under section 11 (3) of the Act. 2. The original landlord died and his legal heirs came on record. They contended that original landlord's wife (PW2) wants to conduct business in the petition schedule building to eke out their livelihood. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the evidence regarding the bona fide need subsequently projected by the legal heirs of the original landlord is not worth convincing since it was only stated in the petition that the landlord wants to conduct business without RCR No.324/2011 .2. specifying the nature of the business proposed to be conducted. But it was stated in evidence that she wants to conduct business in fancy articles. The two authorities below have appreciated the evidence and found that the need put forward by the wife of the original landlord, who is examined as PW2, is bonafide and acceptable. The findings being concurrent, we find it unable to upset the same. That finding is confirmed. 3. Though the tenant contended that she is entitled to the protection under the second proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11, no acceptable evidence was adduced by her and no evidence was also adduced to show that there are no other suitable vacant buildings available in the locality for shifting her business. The concurrent findings entered by the courts below are not liable to be reversed. As such the order of eviction passed concurrently under Section 11 (3) of the Act is confirmed. The revision petition is hence dismissed. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN,JUDGE. dpk