The main legal point established in the judgment is that the landlord's need for eviction under Section 11(3) must be bona fide, and the court will consider the decision of the general body and expert advice in determining the genuineness of the need.

ORDER :

P.B. Suresh Kumar, J.

The tenant in a proceedings for eviction under Sections 11(3) and 11(4)(iv) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (the Act), is the petitioner in this revision petition. The Rent Control Court ordered eviction, both under Sections 11(3) and 11(4)(iv). The tenant appealed against the decision of the Rent Control Court. The Appellate Authority, though set aside the order of eviction under Section 11(4)(iv), affirmed the order under Section 11(3). The tenant is aggrieved by the said decision of the Appellate Authority and hence, this revision petition.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the tenant as also the learned counsel for the landlord.

3. The short question that falls for consideration is whether the decision of the Appellate Authority affirming the order of eviction under Section 11(3) suffer from any illegality, irregularity or impropriety.

4. The landlord is a constituent body of Nair Service Society. They have an office in a property owned by them which is situated on the eastern side of Alleppy -Thanneermukkom public road. The landlord is also running a school in the property. There exists a line building consisting of three shop rooms in the property of the landlord abutting the public road. The office of the landlord and the school are situated behind the line building. As the line building covers almost the entire road frontage of the property, the entry to the office of the landlord and the school run by them is through a passage that exists on the northern side of the line building. The tenant is occupying the centre room in the line building. The case set out by the landlord in the eviction petition is that they intend to convert the room occupied by the tenant for a proper and easy entrance to their office and to have a parking place for the vehicles of those who come to their office and to the school. The tenant filed objections to the eviction petition contending mainly that the need set out is not bona fide, as a convenient parking place cannot be created by converting the tenanted premises as the entrance to the office and school of the landlord. It was repelling the said contention that the authorities below ordered eviction of the tenant under Section 11 (3).

5. The learned counsel for the tenant pointed out that there was an attempt on the part of the landlord to evict the tenant forcefully from the premises and the same was prevented by the tenant by instituting a suit against the landlord as O.S.No.680 of 2017 before the Munsiff Court, Alappuzha. According to him, it is to wreak vengeance on the tenant for having instituted the said suit, the landlord instituted the proceedings against him. The learned counsel reinforced the said submission pointing out that there is a reference about the said case in Ext.A4 resolution adopted by them for instituting the proceedings. It was argued by the learned counsel that though it is stated by the landlord in the eviction petition that it is based on the advice given by a 'vasthu' consultant that they have decided to form a new entrance to their office building through the tenanted premises, they have not examined the 'vasthu' consultant in the proceedings. According to the learned counsel, non-examination of the 'vasthu' consultant by the landlord on their side is fatal to the case set out by them. It was also asserted by the learned counsel for the tenant, placing reliance on Exts.C1 and C2 reports of the Advocate Commissioners appointed in the proceedings that vehicular access cannot be ensured to the property of the landlord by converting the tenanted premises as an entrance to their office and school. Similarly, it was asserted by the learned counsel that a parking place for vehicles cannot be created by such a conversion. In short, the submission made by the learned counsel was that the landlord has failed to establish that the need set out for eviction is a bona fide one.

6. We have examined the contentions raised by