The main legal point established is that a genuine and bona fide need for accommodation must be alleged and proved for eviction under S.11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. Additionally, a landlord is entitled to eviction if the tenant has possession of a building reasonably sufficient for his requirements in the same locality under S.11(4)(iii).

K.V. Sankaranarayanan, J.

1. The first respondent in R.C.P. No. 62/93 on the file of the Rent Controller (Munsiff), Taliparamba, who was the first respondent before the Rent Control Appellate Authority (District Judge), Thalassery (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) is the revision petitioner. Deceased first respondent (hereinafter referred to as the landlady) filed R.C.P. No. 62/93 against the revision petitioner and his brother, the second respondent in all these proceedings, claiming eviction of the tenants from the shop building with Old Door No. TP VI/440 of the Taliparamba Panchayat and New No. XII/783 of the Taliparamba Municipality for the purpose of own occupation under S.11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act and also on the ground that the tenant had other buildings in his possession in the same Municipality under S.11(4)(iii) of the Act. In the rent control petition she alleged that the building had been taken on lease by the two respondents as per Ext. A1 rent chit dated 29/11/1977 on a monthly rent of Rs. 75/-. The lease was for a period of six months, but was continued even after the expiry of the term. She further stated that the second respondent was not in possession or enjoyment of the building and the first respondent (revision petitioner) alone was in possession and he was paying the rent also. She alleged that he had other buildings in the municipality sufficient for his requirements. She also stated that one of her sons, khalid was unemployed and was dependent on her and the building was required for him for conducting a business. The revision petitioner resisted the petition. In his counter statement he contended that the two respondents were the brothers of the landlady. The building originally belonged to their Tharavad Mammed, the father of the petitioner as also the respondents had taken the building on rent from his wife's family in 1930 for conducting a business in groceries and handloom textiles. He contended that he was originally helping his father in the business, but, later took over the entire business when the father fell sick. As per the partition in the family, the building was set apart to the share of the petitioner landlady and possession was continued under her. Thus he claimed possession prior to 1/4/1940 and protection from eviction under S.11(17) of the Act. He denied the landlady's claim that her son, Khalid was unemployed and was depending on her. All the sons of the landlady were engaged in one kind of business or other. They had business establishments in Taliparamba, Payyannur and Kannur and a shopping complex was also coming up in Kannur. There was no necessity for Khalid to conduct a business of his own. They had also other landed property in different places. He further contended that his brother, second respondent had joined the rent deed only as insisted upon by the landlady's husband, but, at the same time, disputed the statement that he had no interest in the business. He also denied the averments that he had other buildings in his possession, sufficient for his requirements. He stated that the shop building possessed by him was very old and was not sufficient for business conducted by him.

2. At the trial, the landlady's son, Khalid, whose need was projected in the petition, was examined as PW 1. The revision petitioner, tenant was examined as RW 1 and two other witnesses as RWs 2 and 3. Exts. A1 to A5 series documents were marked on the side of the landlady and Exts. B1 to B11 series documents on the side of the revision petitioner tenant. On a consideration of the evidence, the Rent Control Court by its order dated 24/6/1994 found that the landlady had failed to establish the claim for eviction on both grounds and dismissed the petition. However, in R.C.A. No. 110/94, the appeal filed by the landlady, the appellate authority has reversed the findings and found that she was entitled to eviction under S.11(3) as also S.11(4)(iii) of the Act.