IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 21ST MARCH 2011 / 30TH PHALGUNA 1932 RCRev..No. 127 of 2011() ------------------------ RCA.68/2008 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY THALASSERY RCP.32/2007 of ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT, KANNUR .................... REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS --------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SMT.KAMALA, W/O.LATE GOVINDAN, AGED 70 YEARS, NO OCCUPATION, RESIDING AT 'PREM NIVAS', NEAR OLACHERI KAVU, TALAP, KANNUR-2 AMSOM, CHALAD DESOM. 2. PREMNATH C.V., S/O.KAMALA, AGED 49 YEARS, FRIDGE & A/C MECHANIC, RESIDING AT 'PREM NIVAS', NEAR OLACHERRI KAVU, THALAP, KANNUR-2 AMSOM, CHALAD DESOM. BY ADV. SRI.V.RAMKUMAR NAMBIAR SRI.C.X.ANTONY BENEDICT RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------ M.K.RAJENDRAN, S/O.LATE KUNHIRAMAN, AGED 70 YEARS, BUSINESS, RESIDING AT 'RAJASREE', RED CROSS ROAD, PAYYAMBALAM, KANNUR-2 AMSOM, KANATHUR DESOM. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No. 127 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 21st day of March, 2011 O R D E R Balakrishnan J. The tenants are in revision. They challenge the order of eviction concurrently passed under Section 11(3) of the Act. The landlord contended that he bona fide needs the petition schedule building for enabling his son to conduct grocery business. It is stated that at present he is helping the landlord who is conducting grocery business in another building. The petition schedule room is a part of the larger building consisting of four rooms. According to the landlord, all the four rooms are required by him for conducting grocery business. It is stated that one of the rooms had already been got vacated by filing the rent control petition. 2. The claim of the landlord was resisted by the tenants contending that PW2, for whose need the petition schedule building was sought to be evicted, is working in ICICI, prudential and that he does not require the petition schedule RCR.No.127/2011 2 building nor does he intend to start business in grocery items. 3. After analysing the evidence, the Rent Control Court found that the need projected by the landlord is bona fide. The tenants could not substantiate their claim for protection under the second proviso to section 11(3) of the Act. The Rent Control Appellate Authority also concurred with the order passed by the Rent Control Court. 4. Sri.V.Ramkumar Nambiar, learned counsel for the revision petitioners would submit that the courts below have not properly considered the contention raised by the tenants that PW2 is actually working in ICICI Prudential and as such the need projected is only a ruse for eviction. It is further contended that since the landlord is conducting grocery business in another building, it is unlikely that his son would also start grocery business. It is also contended that since the petition schedule building is in a dilapidated condition, it is unsuitable for conducting grocery business. The needy son, himself has mounted the witness box and deposed as PW2 that he intends to start grocery business and had gained experience by helping his father in the conduct of grocery business. Evidence on RCR.No.127/2011 3 record will show that by filing the rent control petition another room under the same roof has already been got vacated. According to the landlord, all the four rooms are required for conducting the stationery business. Though it was contended that PW2 is a permanent employee under ICICI Prudential, that contention could not be substantiated by the tenants. According to the landlord, PW2 is working under ICICI Prudential on a temporary basis and there is no job security for him. The contention raised by the landlord that PW2 actually intends to start business in grocery items cannot be said to be actuated by malice or oblique motives. 5. We have gone through the order of the Rent Control Court and the Judgment of the Appellate Authority. We find no reason to upset the findings regarding the bona fide need put forward by the landlord. Though the tenants are conducting repair works in air conditioners and refrigerators, they could not produce documents to show what was the income they were getting to substantiate the plea that they were mainly depending on the petition schedule building for their livelihood. They also could not prove the second limb of the second proviso RCR.No.127/2011 4 to sub section (3) of Section 11 and as such they are not entitled to the protection of the second proviso to section 11 (3). There is no illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the orders passed by the courts below. The result is that the revision petition fails and the same is dismissed. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE dpk