IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2011 / 17TH CHAITHRA 1933 RCRev..No. 163 of 2011() ------------------------ RCA.113/2008 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, KOZHIKODE-III RCP.100/2005 of PRL.M.C.,KOZHIKODE-II .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT-RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- K.SADANANDAN, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O. IMBACHAN, PRINCE WATCH WORKS MARKET ROAD, FEROKE P.O. KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.V.S.CHANDRASEKHARAN KUM.D.MINI RAJAN SMT.LEKSHMI SWAMINATHAN RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT NO.2 – 2ND PETITIONER: --------------- A.ANITHA, AGED 47, D/O. MADHAVAN, RESIDING AT AKSHAYA, FEROKE P.O. KOZHIKODE PIN 673003. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No. 163 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 7th day of April, 2011 O R D E R Balakrishnan, J. The tenant is the revision petitioner. An order of eviction was concurrently passed under Section 11(3) of the Act. The Rent Control Petition was filed by the original landlady contending the petition schedule building is required bona fide to enable her daughter Anitha to start a tailoring business therein. Subsequently, the landlady died. Anitha, the second petitioner in the rent control petition, has given evidence to the effect that she bona fide needs the petition schedule building for starting tailoring business. 2. The need projected by the landlady was resisted by the tenant contending that earlier the landlady had sent a notice stating that she needs the building for bona fide occupation of her grand son Libeesh and on getting notice a portion of the petition schedule building measuring 1.135 sq. meter was given back to the landlady. It is contended that the present petition RCR.No.163/2011 2 is only a ruse for eviction and that it was filed to pressurise the tenant to pay huge amount as rent. 3. The Rent Control Court after analysing the evidence, in particular the evidence given by PW1, the needy woman, found that the need projected by the landlady is true. Though it was contended by the tenant that he depends mainly on the income derived from the watch repair works in the petition schedule building and that there are no other suitable buildings available in the locality to shift his business, he could not substantiate the claim under the second proviso to section 11(3). Thus the order of eviction was passed. 4. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority after reappreciating the evidence concurred with the order passed by the Rent Control Court. 5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the two courts below did not appreciate the evidence properly. It should have been found that though notice was sent earlier projecting the need of the landlady's grandson, the same was not pursued by the landlady evidently because the rent was enhanced and also because the portion of the petition RCR.No.163/2011 3 schedule building was given back to the landlady. The Court below found that except the self serving statement of the tenant, there is no other evidence to show that any portion of the tenanted premises was surrendered or given back to the landlady. The other contention raised by the tenant is that the husband of PW1 is employed in Ernakulam and so there is no necessity for PW1 to start a tailoring work in the petition schedule building. That plea was also negatived by the court below holding that even if PW1 's husband is having some avocation, that is no reason to hold that PW1 should not conduct a tailoring shop in the petition schedule building for earning her livelihood or augment the income of the family. There is no evidence to show that PW1 is having any other avocation or that she is having any other vacant building of her own for starting the tailoring shop. Therefore, the courts below were justified in ordering eviction holding that the need projected is bona fide. 6. The burden is on the tenant to substantiate his claim for protection under the second proviso to section 11 (3). He did not adduce any satisfactory evidence to show that he is mainly RCR.No.163/2011 4 depending on the business conducted in the petition schedule building for his livelihood. He did not prove that there are no other suitable vacant buildings available in the locality to shift his business. Thus the plea for protection under the second proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11 was also rightly rejected by the two courts below. We find no illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the order of eviction passed by the courts below. The result is that the revision fails and the same is dismissed. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE dpk