Kamalam vs Davis

N.K. Balakrishnan, J.—Under challenge in this revision is the order of eviction passed concurrently u/s 11 (3) of the Act. The need projected by the landlords was to start a business of collecting raw coconut and for sale of coconut oil. It was stated that he is at present running a mill near his house. The need projected by the landlord was resisted by the tenant contending that it is only a ruse for eviction and there is no necessity to obtain the petition schedule building for starting the business proposed. The tenant also contended that he is entitled to the benefit of the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act.

The learned Rent Control Court after analysing the evidence found that the bona fide need urged by the landlord is true. It was further found that the tenant is not entitled to the protection under the second proviso to Section 11(3). Though order of eviction was passed u/s 11(2)(b) also, the same is not challenged. The tenant can get that order vacated by filing application u/s 11 (2)(c) within one month from today. The order of eviction passed u/s 11(3) was confirmed by the learned Appellate Authority after reappreciating the evidence adduced by the parties.

The learned Counsel for the revision Petitioner vehemently argued that both the courts did not appreciate the evidence properly. It was contended that the landlord was having in his possession four other rooms. But it was brought out in evidence that those rooms are not suitable for starting the proposed business. It was further found that the petition schedule room is more suitable for the proposed business and as such the court below came to the conclusion that the claim is bona fide and is not prompted by oblique motives or extraneous considerations.

The further contention that the upstair rooms can be made use of by the landlord for conducting the business was also found to be devoid of any merit, since the landlord cannot be asked to use the upstair portion when it is possible for him to get the room down stair for conducting the business more conveniently. The evidence given by PW1 could not be properly assailed by the revision Petitioner. There is no malafides in the claim put forward by the landlord.

We have gone through the order passed by the Rent Control Court and also the judgment of the learned Appellate Authority. We find no illegality, irregularity or impropriety about the orders passed by the two statutory authorities. The tenant could not satisfy both the ingredients to get the protection under the second proviso to Section 11(3). The order of eviction passed u/s 11 (3) requires no interference at the hands of this Court.

The result therefore is that the revision petition fails and the same will stand dismissed.