The court upheld the Rent Control Appellate Authority's decision on the bona fide need for eviction under Sec. 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965.

Cyriac Joseph, J.

1. This Civil Revision Petition arises from R.C.P. No. 128 of 1997 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Vadakara. The petitioners are the tenants and the respondents are the landlords.

2. The landlords filed R.C.P. No. 128 of 1997 praying for eviction of the tenants under Sections 11(3) and 11(4) (iii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The Rent Control Court dismissed the petition rejecting the claim of the landlords under Sections 11(3) and 11(4) (iii) of the Act. Against the order of the Rent Control Court, the landlords filed R.C.A. No. 55 of 1999 in the Court of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kozhikode. The Appellate Authority as per its judgment dated 7th July 2001 confirmed the finding of the Rent Control Court in respect of the claim under Sec. 11(4)(iii), but ordered eviction under Sec. 11(3) of the Act. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, the tenants have filed this Revision Petition.

3. The Rent Control Court had found that the entrustment of the building to the first respondent in the R.C.P. and his brother and the rate of rent were not disputed by the tenants. It was also found that as per the evidence on record, the first respondent and his deceased brother Kunhabdulla Haji were occupying the petition schedule building, which was entrusted to them as per Exts. A1 and A2 by late Kunhiraman Nambiar, the predecessor in interest of the petitioners in the R.C.P. The definite case of the petitioners in the R.C.P. was that the 5th petitioner required the petition schedule building to start an off set printing press to eke out his livelihood. According to the petitioners in the R.C.P. no other building was in the possession of the petitioners, which could be spared for the 5th petitioner to start the off set printing press. The contention of the tenants was that the need alleged in the petition was not bona fide and that the said ground was raised with the oblique motive to evict the tenants from the petition schedule building. According to them, the 5th petitioner was running a photo copying business in another building. But the said allegation was vehemently denied by the 5th petitioner who was examined as P.W.1. After considering the rival contentions, the Rent Control Court held that P.W.1 (5th petitioner) was not at all a skilled or experienced person in the field of printing technology and there was nothing on record to believe the version of P.W.1 that he had got practical experience to start an off set printing press in the petition schedule building as claimed by him. Considering that the petitioners were having enough landed properties and that they had let out the petition schedule building to the tenants for a monthly income of Rs.12,000/-, the Rent control Court observed that the petitioners were well placed in the society and there was no need for them to do any business in the plaint schedule building. Though the Rent Control Court found that no evidence was placed by the tenants to show that the landlords have got their own vacant buildings in the locality, the court observed that the petitioners (landlords) were “substantial persons who were not intended to do any business” and held that the need alleged in the petition was not at all genuine or pressing.

4. However, in the impugned judgment, the Rent Control Appellate Authority has pointed out that P.W.1 (5th petitioner in the R.C.P.) had given evidence that he had no employment, that he had a wife and two children, that he intended to start an offset printing press in the petition schedule building and that the petitioners/appellants did not own any suitable building other than the plaint schedule building. P.W.1 had also deposed that a sum of Rupees Five Lakhs was required to start the business and that his brothers would help him to raise the capital. It was also stated that the other buildings owned by the appellants were