AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.Muhamed Mustaque, J.
In this revision filed by the tenant, the tenant is questioning an order of eviction under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965('the Act' in short). According to the tenant, the order of eviction passed concurrently by the authorities is erroneous and unsustainable for the reason that the need projected under Section 11(3) of the Act was, in fact, for additional accommodation, which falls under Section 11(8) of the Act. It is submitted that the landlord is already in possession of an adjacent building. The need projected for eviction is to expand the business being run in the adjacent building. In fact, the need projected is not for the landlord but for his son. However, both authorities concurrently answered in favour of the landlord. We also do not find any reason to overturn such a finding of fact and the proper application of law based on the facts and circumstances of the case.
The tenant raised another contention. According to the tenant, he has easement right through the tenanted premises to a building in his possession on the rear side of the tenanted premises. The building on the rear side belongs to the wife of the landlord.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that a civil suit has been instituted and an injunction has already been granted in favour of the petitioner. We do not intend to enter into the controversy as to the right claimed by the tenant. If the tenant has any such right, it has to be adjudicated independently before the Civil Court. It has also been submitted before this Court that the delivery of possession has already been effected by the landlord. We reserve the tenant's liberty to agitate his claim of easement right independently.
With the liberty as above, this revision petition is dismissed.