IMPORTANT POINTS
Once the materials placed on record adequately explain the special reason for not occupying the buildings available with the landlord and parties on both sides had sufficient opportunity of understanding their respective cases each other and also adducing evidence, there is no warrant for the tenant to complain that he was prejudiced by non disclosure of relevant matters in the pleadings of the landlord.

ORDER :

T.V.ANILKUMAR, J.

The revision petitioner is the landlord of a three storied building bearing Door No.CC/67/11307 of Kochi Corporation of which the tenanted premises form part of. The ground floor of the building was let out to respondents 1 and 2 on monthly rent for business purpose under a joint tenancy arrangement. Later, it came to the notice of the revision petitioner that second respondent stopped his business and left the tenanted premises. Still later, it came to his notice that the first respondent without the knowledge and consent of the revision petitioner sublet the tenanted premises to 3rd respondent violating the conditions of the lease.

2. The revision petitioner required the tenanted floor of the building for his own occupation as well as of his son for conducting business in floor tiles and sanitary wares. Revision petitioner further noticed that during the currency of the tenancy, the respondents 1 and 2 used the petition scheduled building in such a manner as to destroy its value and utility materially and permanently. Alleging these facts, the landlord filed R.C.P. No.129 of 2014 before the Rent Control Court, Ernakulam, seeking eviction of respondents 1 to 3 under Sections 11(3), 11(4)(i) and 11(4)(ii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (in short, 'the Act').

3. The Rent control court ordered eviction of respondents only under Section 11(3) of the Act and rejected grounds of eviction under Sections 11(4)(i) & 11(4)(ii) of the Act. The 1st respondent challenged the order of eviction in R.C.A. No.33 of 2016 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Ernakulam which reversed the eviction order in R.C.P. No.129 of 2014. Challenging the order of the Appellate Authority, the landlord filed this revision. The refusal of eviction under Sections 11(4)(i) and 11(4)(ii) of the Act has become final since the landlord has not chosen to challenge the same. During the pendency of the revision petition, the 2nd respondent was deleted from the party array. Practically the 3rd respondent alone now contests the revision.

4. The revision petitioner is a retired bank employee aged 72 years. He claimed that he bona fide needed petition scheduled ground floor owned by him to start a business in sanitary wares and floor tiles along with his son claimed to be his dependent. The third respondent is conducting a textile business in the tenanted premises. According to the revision petitioner, he has no building or room in his possession for starting the proposed business other than the ground floor. It is contended that the tenants have independent sources of income besides their business in the scheduled premises and further there are buildings also in the locality for alternate accommodation of their business.

5. The respondents 1 and 3 denied the alleged bona fide need of the revision petitioner before the courts below. According to them, he has income from pension and further his son is not a dependent on him since he too has independent income and other avocations. They claimed the protection and benefit under the provisos to Section 11(3) of the Act. According to them, their main source of livelihood is the income derived from the textile business in the scheduled premises and there are no suitable buildings for shifting their business. It was specifically contended that the rest of the floors of the three storied building is in the possession of the revision petitioner where he can conveniently conduct the proposed business and there is absolutely no bona fides in his plea for eviction.

6. The Rent Control Court examined the revision petitioner as PW1 and the 1st respondent as RW1. After appreciating the entire evidence on record, it held that the need urged by the revision petitioner was bona fide and it could never be rejected as a mere ruse solely set up for eviction. It also found that respondents failed to discharge the burden of proof cast on them for claiming the benefit under second proviso t