IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 28TH OCTOBER 2008 / 6TH KARTHIKA 1930 RCRev..No. 268 of 2008(E) ------------------------- RCA.23/2000 of II ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, KOLLAM RCOP.6/1996 of ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT, KOLLAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/CR. PETITIONER (S): -------------------- T.G.RAJU, SANGEETHA NIVAS, LEKSHMI NADA, BEACH NORTH WARD, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER(S): --------------- SAIDA, D/O.ABUKABISHATH, ATTUKUZHI PURAYIDOM, BEACH WARD, KOLLAM. ADV. SRI.V.V.RAJA FOR CAVEATOR SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR FOR R1 THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER IN IA NO.2426/08 DISMISSED. 28.10.2008 SD/- P.R. RAMAN, JUDGE. SD/- T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. // TRUE COPY // P.S. TO JUDGE P.R.Raman & T.R. Ramachandran Nair, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.C.R. No.268 of 2008 - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 28th day of October, 2008. O R D E R Ramachandran Nair, J. The tenant in a petition for eviction under the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), is the petitioner herein. This revision petition is filed, aggrieved by the concurrent findings rendered by the authorities below which led to the passing of the order of eviction. The eviction was ordered under Sections 11(3) and 11(4)(v) of the Act. 2. We heard Shri P.B. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Raja Vijayaraghavan, learned counsel who appeared for the respondent on caveat. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that both the grounds pleaded under Sections 11(3) and 11(4)(v) of the Act have not been established by the landlord. It is submitted that the need alleged is without any bonafides. It is also submitted that the finding rendered by the authorities below in regard to the ground pleaded under Section 11(4)(v) of the Act also calls for interference. Learned counsel for the respondent RCR 268/2008 -2- submitted that all the ingredients to attract the grounds pleaded have been clearly proved in evidence. The authorities below have correctly appreciated the facts and on law. 4. The building consists of five shop rooms. The petition schedule shop room bears number 431 which is the eastern most one. The room was let out to the tenant for conducting Ghee stores. The allegation is that the rent has been kept in arrears from February 1995 and the room has been kept closed from March 1995 and thus he has ceased to occupy the room. The bonafide need pleaded is for starting a wholesale business in rice and pulses in the petition schedule room as well as in the adjacent shop rooms. 5. A reading of the order passed by the Rent Control Court shows that the plea of bonafide need put forth was found genuine. There were no circumstances to dispel the genuineness of the bonafide need pleaded. The oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties have been considered in detail. With regard to the ground pleaded under Section 11(4)(v) of the Act, the evidence of P.W.1 was discussed in detail. Even Ext.A9 notice and acknowledgment was returned with the endorsement that the tenant is out of station and the present address is not known. Ext.X1 certificate issued from the Addl. Commercial Tax Officer, Kollam reveals that the monthly return submitted by the tenant from October, 1997 to August, 1998 showed that there were no sales. Even though the tenant pleaded that he had not closed RCR 268/2008 -3- down the shop, he could not substantiate the same with cogent evidence. No documents were produced in support of the plea that the business was being conducted therein. The evidence of the Advocate Commissioner, Exts.C1 and C2 were also relied upon. Even the tenant did not show any documents to the Commissioner also. The evidence further show that the tenant was having large scale business in Coimbatore and Pollachi which also showed that the tenant has not been showing any interest in the premises in question. 6. We have scanned through the evidence in detail and we find no infirmity in the findings rendered by the authorities below. The view taken by the authorities below cannot be said to be perverse warranting interference in our revisional jurisdiction. We are satisfied that the bonafide need pleaded has been proved and the ground pleaded under Section 11(4) (v) of the Act also stands proved. It is pointed out that the tenant has already vacated the premises and the landlord has taken delivery of the room also through court. For all these reasons, we dismiss the revision petition. ( P.R.Raman, Judge.) (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)