P.K. Balasubramanyan

1. These revisions are filed by the tenants of two residential buildings situated adjacent to one another. The landlord sought eviction of the buildings on the ground that she bona fide needed the buildings for her own occupation. The claim was resisted by the tenants. The tenants, in addition to questioning the bona fide need set up by the landlord, pleaded that they were entitled to protection of the second proviso to S.11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The Rent Control Court upheld the bona fide need set up by the landlord. The Rent Control Court also found that the tenants have not established that they are entitled to the protection of the second proviso to S.11(3) of the Act. The Rent Control Court therefore ordered eviction. The tenants filed appeals before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority, on a reconsideration of the relevant materials, came to the conclusion that the bona fide need set up by the landlord has been proved and that the tenants have not established that they are entitled to the protection of the second proviso to S.11(3) of the Act. Thus, the Appellate Authority confirmed the order for eviction and dismissed the appeals. The decisions of the Appellate Authority are challenged in these revisions by the tenants.

2. When these revisions came up for admission, it was found that the landlord has filed a caveat before this court. Counsel for the landlord opposed the revisions. Hence, even when the matters came up, they were heard in detail and they are being disposed of by this order.

3. Though counsel for the tenants made an attempt to challenge the finding of the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority, that the landlord has established the bona fide need for eviction under S.11(3) of the Act, we are not satisfied that any interference is called for with the finding in that regard rendered by the Authorities below. The landlord is a sales girl in a shop in the same town. She has no property other than the petition schedule rooms. She was residing with her sister in the house of her sister, along with the family of her sister. She wanted to stay on her own, in the petition schedule buildings, the only property she had in town. This was the need spoken to by her. The Rent Control Court accepted her evidence in this regard. Nothing could be pointed out which would compel us to differ from the conclusion arrived at by the authorities below regarding the acceptability of the evidence of the landlord in that regard. We therefore find that the landlord has clearly established a bona fide need within the meaning of S.11(3) of the Act.

4. Learned counsel for the tenants seriously contended that the Authorities below were not justified in finding that the tenants were not entitled to the protection of the second proviso to S.11(3) of the Act. Counsel pointed out that the tenants mainly depended on the income derived from the respective businesses carried on by them in the petition schedule buildings for their livelihood and no other buildings were available in that locality for them to shift their business. Counsel points out that the rent for a similar room in the locality would now come to Rs. 1500/- to Rs. 2000/- as against Rs. 125/- to Rs. 150/- now being paid by the tenants to the landlord and that the suitability of another building must be decided in the light of the capacity of the tenants to pay the prevalent rent. We must notice here that this argument is not supported by relevant materials. The tenants have not shown, what was the income derived by them from the businesses carried on by them in the petition schedule buildings. Only then, it would be possible to say that the tenants could not be expected to take another building on rent at the prevalent current rate. In fact, in the absence of any material on the side of the tenants to show what was the income derived by them from the businesses carried on in the petition schedule building