The main legal point established in the judgment is that the landlord's failure to explain the letting out of two rooms just before filing the eviction petition and the unsure manner in which he stated the proposed business affected the genuineness of his bona fide need.

Ramachandran Nair, J.

1. The petitioner herein is the tenant of a building owned by the landlord. The landlord filed R.C.P.No.81/2009 before the Rent Control Court seeking eviction under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of Act 2 of 1965. The Rent Control Court disallowed eviction under Section 11(3) (bona fide need) and allowed the same under Section 11(2)(b), namely for arrears of rent. The Rent Control Court has made it clear that the tenant is entitled to the benefit of Section 11(2)(c), if he so opts. The Appellate Authority, in an appeal filed by the landlord set aside the finding under Section 11(3) and allowed eviction on that ground also.

2. We heard the learned counsel Shri K.Jayesh Mohankumar appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel Shri O.Ramachandran Nambiar appearing for the respondent.

3. Before going into the respective contentions, we will refer to the bare facts. The landlord in the eviction petition projected the bona fide need for conducting own business in the premises. The tenant, in the objections filed to the petition, while disputing the bona fide need, raised a contention that the landlord is having different buildings under his ownership and some of the rooms have been given on rent and some of the rooms are remaining vacant also. He is getting much income from the rental business and has got landed properties also. He is not having any genuine interest for conducting business or experience to do the same. He is mainly engaged in letting out buildings and rooms. It was pleaded that just before filing of the eviction petition, in the very same building, the landlord has given on rent two rooms and if he had any genuine bona fide need, he would not have let out the said rooms. While rejecting the contentions of the landlord under Section 11(3), the Rent Control Court found that the fact that the landlord has let out two rooms just before the filing of the eviction petition and the fact that he has not offered any explanation as to why the proposed business cannot be conducted in the rooms, really will go against the bona fides of the landlord.

4. The Appellate Authority in para.11 was of the view that from the first proviso to Section 11(3), it can be seen that the landlord has to show reasons for not occupying another building only if he is having possession any other building on the date of the eviction petition and there is no evidence with regard to the fact that the landlord was having any other building in his possession as on that date and so the question of making a mention of the same in the eviction petition does not arise. This in a nut shell is the background of the contentions of the parties and the findings rendered by the authorities below.

5. While making submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner Shri K.Jayesh Mohankumar submitted that some of the relevant aspects have been lost sight of by the Appellate Authority. According to the learned counsel, the bona fide need of the landlord has just cropped up, namely, on the date of filing of the eviction petition which is clear from the background and non mentioning of the said bona fide need on any of the earlier occasions when the landlord had filed cases against the tenant herein. It is mentioned that O.S.No.618/2001 was filed seeking for a mandatory injunction contending that the petitioner herein was only a licencee which was negatived. Again he filed R.C.P.No.294/2004 under Section 11(2)(b). It is submitted that even if these two are of the years 2001 and 2004; just before the filing of the eviction petition, the landlord had sent various notices and in none of the notices, the requirement for own occupation has been made mention of. This aspect assumes importance in the light of the fact that he has let out the two rooms in the first floor of the building 20 days before the filing of the eviction petition and after the sending of the notices. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the tenent, this is a genui