ORDER :

A.Muhamed Mustaque, J.

The Landlady's attempt to evict two tenants for the need of her husband to create an open space for a building constructed by the husband on an adjacent land has been successful. The husband intends to occupy the land after the demolition of the tenanted premises. The tenants have come up with these revisions. The rent control petitions were tried by the Rent Controller in different proceedings. As a result, divergent findings were made by the Rent controller. However, the appellate authority heard the matter together and passed an order allowing eviction sought by the landlady under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”).

2. The learned counsel for the tenants, Shri Abraham George Jacob, ably argued the matter in extenso and submitted that the appellate authority misread Section 11(3) of the Act by allowing eviction. According to the learned counsel, the need projected was for the husband to occupy the tenanted premises after demolition, for creating an open space for a building illegally constructed by the husband in the adjacent land. By elaborating his argument, he submits that