The court emphasized the obligation of the Rent Control Court to investigate the bona fides of the claim put forward by the landlord under S.11(7) and the necessity to consider the competence of the person representing the landlord before allowing eviction.

1. The revision petitioner is in occupation of a non-residential building situated within the Calicut City limits as a tenant under the respondent. A petition, R.C.O.P. 86 of 1968, was filed by the respondent before the Rent Control Court, Kozhikode, under S.11 (2) and (7) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965, for the eviction of the revision petitioner on the ground that he had kept the rent in arrears and that the building was needed by the landlord who claimed to be a public institution within the meaning of the expression as used in S.11 (7) for the purposes of the said institution. It may be mentioned at this juncture that the respondent-landlord is a Mercantile Employees' Association which is a trade union registered under the Indian Trade Unions Act, 1926. The plea put forward by the landlord is that the building is needed for the purposes of re-starting a Recreation Club for the members of the Association.

2. The revision petitioner (tenant) refuted the claim of the respondent - Association that it is a public institution entitled to claim the benefits of Subsection (7) of S.11. It was also contended by the tenant that the case set up by the landlord that the building is needed for the purposes of the Association was not bona fide or true since the Association was in possession of an upstairs portion consisting of a hall in another building belonging to itself which portion was lying vacant. The claim for eviction based on non-payment of rent was also disputed by the tenant by contending that there were no arrears and that he had paid off all the rent in arrears and was not, therefore, liable to be called upon to vacate the premises.

3. The Rent Control Court held that the respondent - Association is not a public institution so as to entitle it to invoke the benefits of sub-section (7) of S.11 of the Act. It also found that the General Secretary of the Association who had purported to file the eviction petition on his behalf was not competent to institute any such proceedings, since, under the Articles of the Constitution governing the Association, the President alone is vested with the authority to represent the Association before courts, tribunals etc. As regards the prayer for eviction based on non-payment of rent, counsel for the landlord conceded before the Rent Control Court that all arrears of rent had been cleared.

4. In the light of the findings arrived at by the Rent Control Court on the question regarding that the respondent - Associations not a public institution and that the General Secretary who filed the petition had no competence to represent the Association, it dismissed the petition without entering any finding on the question as to whether the plea of bona fide need put forward by the landlord was true.

5. The respondent - Association took up the matter in appeal before the Subordinate Judge, Kozhikode, in his capacity as appellate authority under the Act. The learned Subordinate Judge by his judgment dated 3rd October 1970 held that the respondent - Association is a public institution within the meaning of the expression as used in S.11(7) of the Act, and that the contrary finding entered into by the Rent Control Court was incorrect. However, the appellate authority did not go into the question of the competence of the General Secretary to institute the proceedings for eviction on behalf of the Association. After recording its finding on the first point relating to the status of the Association as to whether the respondent - Association was a public institution, the appellate authority proceeded to consider whether the claim put forward by the Association that it needed the building for the purposes of the Association was established as bona fide by the evidence. On a consideration of the evidence adduced in the case, the appellate authority came to the conclusion that in view of the fact that the Association was also in possession of a spacious hall on the first floor of