IMPORTANT POINTS
Buildings in his possession are situated outside the locality or town in which petition schedule shop rooms are located-The wider range and scope of Section 11(8) than that of Section 11(3), in deciding the plea of parties with respect to comparative hardship, alternative and suitable buildings in the possession of parties situated in different locality or town are also relevant facts for consideration. The failure of revision petitioner to explain as to why he abstains from availing the alternative accommodation is a strong circumstance to indicate that he is not going to suffer any hardship in the event of his eviction from the tenanted premises.

ORDER :

T.V. ANILKUMAR, J.

Concurrent orders of eviction of the revision petitioner under Section 11(8) of Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short 'the Act') passed by the Rent Control Court and Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kozhikode, are challenged by him in this revision. There were other grounds of eviction also taken against the revision petitioner under Sections 11(2)(b), 11(4) (ii) and 11(3) but all except Section 11(3) were considered and rejected by the Rent Control Court on merits. Ground under Section 11(3) of the Act was not pressed by the landlords at the trial itself and resultantly petition for the eviction under that Section was dismissed as withdrawn.

2. The revision petitioner/tenant challenged the order of Rent Control Court in R.C.P.No.215/15 dated 25.1.2017 in R.C.A.No.53/2017 while the respondents/landlords chose to accept the dismissal of petition under Sections 11(2)(b), 11(4)(ii) and 11(3) of the Act as final. The Appellate Authority, Kozhikode, concurred with the order of eviction passed under Section 11(8) of the Act and dismissed R.C.A.No.53/2017 by its impugned order dated 5.1.2018.

3. The revision petitioner is conducting 'Jass Medicals' in the tenanted two rooms in the ground floor bearing Door No.V/3457 B&C situated within the limits of Kozhikode Corporation. These two rooms measuring 450 sq.ft. of area are part of a larger building jointly owned by all the three respondents. To the immediate west of the tenanted rooms, the 2nd respondent who is one of the co- owners, is conducting a fast food business under the name and style, 'Hot & Cool' in Door No.V/3457 D. On the immediate east, another tenant is conducting a hotel under the name 'Deluxe Restaurant'. The 1st respondent had purchased half right of ownership in the building from the erstwhile landlord. The remaining undivided half was purchased by respondents 2 and 3, who are husband and wife, while the tenancy in favour of the revision petitioner was continuing with the previous landlord. The landlord and tenant relationship is not a matter in dispute between the parties in this case.

4. According to the respondents, fast food business cannot be profitably run in the small room which has only approximate 150 sq.ft of area, due to lack of space and convenience. The room is too insufficient for the customers to sit and take food. It is therefore stated that the 2nd respondent wants to expand his 'Hot and Cool' fast food shop into a full-fledged restaurant, for which he bonafide requires additional space. His idea is that if the eastern wall of the small room is removed, the adjacent tenanted rooms could be annexed to the existing Door No.V/3457 D in his occupation whereby he will be enabled to make use of the combined space for running a pucca restaurant in a profitable manner. He has also stated that no suitable building or premises are available in the locality for conducting a profitable restaurant and unless eviction is ordered under Section 11(8) of the Act, he would be put to more hardship than what the revision petitioner would suffer by his eviction. It is also contended that there are suitable and adequate number of vacant shop rooms in the locality where the tenant can conveniently shift his medical shop and moreover, he owns another medical shop and two shopping complexes in his own name in different places. The respondents after sending lawyer's notice demanding surrender of the premises and not being satisfied with the reply to the notice, sought recovery of the tenanted premises under Sections 11(2)(b), 11(4)(ii), 11(3) and 11(8) of the Act.

5. In the courts below, the revision petitioner disputed the bonafides of additional accommodation sought by the 2nd respondent. He alleged that the need urged for converting fast food shop into a restaurant was not bonafide but only a ruse for eviction. If the landlords have genuine desire to expand the business, they could have chosen to evict the tenant of the room on