A landlord’s bonafide requirement for premises under Section 11(3) takes precedence over a tenant’s claims of alternative accommodations.

O R D E R

Mohammed Nias.C.P.J The revision petitioner is the tenant, aggrieved by the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Additional District Judge-II) dated 17.03.2022, in RCA No.2 of 2021 confirming the order of eviction passed in RCP No.22 of 2018 dated 29.02.2020 of the Rent Controller (Munsiff), Hosdurg.

2. The respondent herein, the landlord, filed the rent control petition seeking eviction under Sections 11 (3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), claiming eviction contending that the petitioner is unemployed and therefore desirous of starting a business in 'Pardas' and textiles for which she has experience as well as financial stability. The petitioner also contended that there are no other rooms available in her possession to start the proposed business and thus bonafide required the scheduled rooms. Though there are several rooms in the locality available for the respondents to shift their business, they did not accede to the request made by the landlord through a lawyer's notice and hence filed the petition seeking eviction.

3. The respondents filed a counter resisting the petition stating that there are vacant rooms in the possession of the petitioner and, if at all the petitioner wanted to start the business, she could have stated therein. It is also the argument that the locality is not fit and convenient to start a business in textiles.

4. The Rent controller, after considering the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 and Exts.A1 to A7 and also the Commissioner Reports as well as the evidence of RW1, found that the need was bonafide and that the tenant was not entitled to the protection of first and second provisos of the Act and ordered eviction.

5. Aggrieved by the order of eviction, the tenant approached the appellate authority, reiterating the contentions taken before the rent control court. The appellate authority, however, confirmed the order of eviction and dismissed the appeal, against which this revision is preferred.

6. Before us, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterated the contentions taken before the courts below and submitted that there were vacant rooms on the building's first floor; therefore, the eviction should not have been ordered under Section 11 (3) of the Act. It is also their argument that it is difficult for them to shift the business as the society doing banking business.

7. Having considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner with the available records, we do not think that the orders impugned call for any interference. After appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, the courts below clearly found that the need alleged is bonafide. There was nothing brought out either in pleadings or evidence to discredit the need set up. The contention that the landlord has vacant rooms in the first-floor portion can also not be taken as a ground to refuse eviction as the landlord had clearly stated that they are in the upstair portion and the landlord wanted the ground-floor portion. It is for the landlord to choose the rooms for starting a business, and the tenant cannot dictate how else the landlord should adjust.

8. In such circumstances, we uphold the authorities' findings below that the tenant will not get the benefit of the first proviso to Section 11 (3) of the Act. As regards the second proviso, as rightly found by the authorities, the Commissioner appointed in the case had pointed out the availability of several rooms in the locality. Only if the tenant satisfies both the limbs of the second proviso to (3) of the Act would he get the benefits of the said proviso. In the instant case, the tenant has failed to prove the ingredients of the second proviso. We find that the authorities had rightly construed the evidence, let in, and arrived at the conclusion on the basis of the applicable law. We do not think that the impugned orders are illegal, improper, or irregular, warranting interferen