The court upheld the landlord's bona fide need for recovery based on retirement plans and lack of other property. It also validated the tenant's reliance on the 2nd proviso to S.11(3) as he proved the non-availability of suitable buildings for his business.

R. Rajendra Babu, J.

This revision is at the instance of the appellant/ tenant in R.C.A. 23/1989 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Alappuzha, The landlord-respondent filed R.C.P.1/i986 before the Rent Control Court, Alappuzha claiming recovery of the tenanted building under S.11(2) (b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, for short the Act. The Rent Control Court allowed recovery both under S.11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act. The appeal filed by the tenant was R.C.A. 23/1989 before the Appellate Authority, Alappuzha, was dismissed upholding the order of the Rent Control Court. Aggrieved by the above order, the tenant has come up before this Court in revision under S.20 of the Act.

2. The landlord filed R.C.P. 1/1936 for recovery of the building under S.11(2)(b) alleging that the tenant had defaulted in paying the rent from April 3985 onwards at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month and that he bona fide needed the building for his residence along with the members of his family after making necessary modifications to the building and that he had no other building or property of his own. The tenant- revision petitioner filed objection denying the landlord-tenant relationship between the respondent and the revision petitioner and contended that he was not a defaulter in paying the rent and the claim for own occupation set up by the revision petitioner was without any bona fides. He further contended that he was solely depending for his livelihood on the income derived from the business of teashop conducted in the petition schedule building and no other suitable buildings were available in the locality for carrying on his business of teashop.

3. The petitioner was examinee] as P.V.1 and Exts. Al to A9 were marked on the landlord's side. The tenant was examined as CPW1 and two witnesses as CPWs. 2 and 3 and Exts. B1 to B5 documents were also marked on his side.

4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the respondent were heard.

5. The respondent/ landlord filed R.C.P. 1/1986 before the Rent Control Court, Alappuzha, for getting recovery of the building alleging that the tenant defaulted in paying the rent at the rate of Rs. 507- per mensum from April 1985 onwards and that he needed the building for his own residential purpose after effecting suitable modifications to Use building, One of the contentions raised by the tenant was that there was no landlord-tenant relationship. His case was that the building was taken on rent from Raghavan PiiSai, brother of the revision petitioner, on 7.3,1978 and at the expiry of the period of lease, the said Raghavan Pillai obtained certain signed stamp papers from him and later a rent deed was created in favour of the respondent utilising those stamp papers. The Rent Control Court as well as the Rent Control Appellate Authority had considered the rival contentions and the evidence and concurrently found that Ext. Al was a genuine document and there was landlord-tenant relationship between the respondent and the revision petitioner and that the tenant had defaulted in paying the rent and hence the tenant was liable to be evicted under S.11(2)(b) of the Act. The above finding was not challenged in this revision.

6. At the time of filing the petition the landlord was employed in the Defence Service. It was alleged in the petition that as he had served the Defence Service for more than 20 years, he was eligible for voluntary retirement and he wanted to retire from the service and to stay with his family at his native place so that he can look after the welfare of his family. Ext. A5 is a certificate issued by the General Manager of the Ordinance Factory, where the respondent was working during 1986, showing that the respondent had served the Defence Service for more than 20 years and was eligible for voluntary retirement with pensionary benefits at the time of issue of the certificate. When the landlord was examined as PW1, he had given evidence