The court confirmed that a tenant's possession of a building suitable for their business did not preclude eviction under S.11(4)(iii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act.

1. Both these Civil Revision Petitions arise out of proceedings for eviction of two tenants under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter called the Act). The tenants are revision petitioners in CRP. No. 507 of 1979, while the landlords are the revision petitioners in CRP. No. 588 of 1979. The building concerned was taken on lease as per Ext. A-1 dated 9-10-1969 by the petitioners in CRP. No. 507 of 1979.1 will be referring to the parties on the basis of their position in CRP. 507 of 1979. Notice of eviction was sent on 12-7-1976, wherein it had been stated that the landlords required the building for their bona fide need. The Rent Control Court found that they did not have any bona fide need for eviction and that the 2nd petitioner was mainly depending upon the income from the schedule premises for his livelihood. However, eviction was ordered under S.11(4)(iii) of the Act holding that the 2nd petitioner was possessed of a building which was suitable for carrying on the trade, which is being conducted in the scheduled premises.

2. Appeals were taken to the Sub Court by both the landlords and the petitioners. The Sub Court reversing the decision of the Rent Controller found that the landlords were entitled to eviction on the ground of bona fide need. However, as the 2nd petitioner was entitled to protection of the second proviso to S.11(3), eviction therefore on the ground of bona fide need was refused. But eviction was granted again under S 11 (4) (iii) of the Act. There was a revision taken to the District Court under S.20 of the Act and in revision the District Judge held that though the landlords have got bona fide need, the tenants are not liable to surrender in view of the protection under second proviso to S.11 (3) of the Act The District Court however confirmed the findings of the lower authorities that eviction can be sustained under S.11 (4) (iii) of the Act. This decision has given rise to the Civil Revision Petitions.

3. What is contended by the tenants before me is that S.11 (4) (iii) of the Act is not attracted and would not apply to the facts and circumstances of the case. The 2nd petitioner, it is alleged, did not have any rights in building No. 9/252, which according to the court below and the lower Tribunals is a building reasonably sufficient for the requirements of the tenants and their occupation in the same town. It is urged that neither on the date of the application for eviction or on the date when the order for eviction was passed the 2nd petitioner had that right. It is their contention that the authorities below have erred in taking the property of the wife as the property of the husband. It is also urged that in any view of the matter on the date when the order was passed by the District Court the 2nd petitioner could not be held to be in possession of the building as there had been a transfer of his wife's right in the building before that date and long before he himself had surrendered his tenancy right. It is also pointed out that there was no consideration of the suitability of the building for the purpose of S.11(4)(iii) of the Act. Another contention that was put forward was that the notice that was issued by the landlord before the proceedings marked in this case, Ext. A-2, there was no claim for eviction under S.11 (4) (iii), that was because the landlords knew very well that the petitioners did not have any other suitable building to attract S.11 (4) (iii) of the Act. It is the tenants' case that the District Court failed to note that the petitioners had to surrender 9/252 when registered notice was sent by the original landlord and the assignee on 3-6-1976 and the surrender was on 21-6-1976. The finding of the courts below that the landlords' claim for eviction for bona fide need was sustainable is also attacked contending that the evidence on this aspect has been misread.

4. In the revision filed by the landlords a contention that is taken up is that the fi