The court clarified that the 1st proviso to Section 11(3) restricts eviction only if the landlord possesses an entirely separate building, not additional rooms within the same building.

ORDER

P.V.Kunhikrishnan, J

The revision petitioner is the respondent in RCP No. 68/2015 on the file of the Rent Controller/Munsiff, Thalassery. The respondent herein is the petitioner in the above Rent Control petition. The Rent Control petition was filed for eviction under Sec.11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short 'Act, 1965'). Hereinafter, the Revision Petitioner and the Respondent are referred in accordance with their rank before the Rent Control Court.

2. The case of the petitioner before the Rent Control Court can be summarised like this:- The petitioner schedule room bearing No.EP XVI 513 belonged to the petitioner. It was given on lease to the respondent by the petitioner's mother, C.M.Rohini and the rent was fixed as Rs.900 per month. The petitioner is a yoga instructor and he wants to start a consultant and treatment centre in the petition schedule room and other rooms adjacent to it to the benefit of the people suffering from permanent ailments of migraine, allergy, heart disease, blood pressure etc. The petition schedule room and other rooms are suitable for the said purpose. According to the petitioner, he can profitably conduct the said business, if he gets possession of the petition schedule room and other rooms near to it. The petitioner pleaded in the Rent Control Petition that no other vacant building is in his direct possession for conducting the said business. He contended that the need of the petitioner for the vacant possession of the petition schedule room is bonafide, genuine, and urgent. Even though a request was made to the respondent to get vacant possession of the room, the respondent refused to surrender the room. Hence, the petition was filed under Sec. 11(3) of the Act, 1965.

3. The respondent filed a counter in which the landlord- tenant relationship and the rate of rent are admitted. According to the tenant, the bonafide need projected in the petition is only a ruse to evict the respondent. The respondent contended that the petitioner is the owner in possession of a big hall having double the size of the petition schedule room just on the adjacent right side of the petition schedule room. There are other rooms also lying vacant in the possession of the petitioner. The respondent also contended that the petitioner is not a yoga instructor or expert and he has no intention to start such a business in his old age. Therefore, the respondent contended that the petition is liable to be dismissed.

4. To substantiate the case, the petitioner was examined as PW1, and the respondent was examined as RW1. Exts.A1 to A3 were marked on the side of the petitioner and Exts. B1 to B9 were marked on the side of the respondent. After going through the evidence and the documents, the Rent Control Court ordered eviction under Sec. 11(3) of the Act, 1965.

5. Aggrieved by the order of eviction, the respondent filed an appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority/Additional District Judge-II, Thalassery. The Rent Control Appellate Authority after considering the entire oral and documentary evidence concluded that there is nothing to interfere with the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court and accordingly dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the above eviction order passed by the Rent Control Court, which is confirmed by the appellate authority, this revision is filed.

6. Heard counsel for the respondent/tenant and the petitioner/Landlord.

7. The learned counsel for the respondent-tenant raised only one point. The counsel submitted that he is entitled to the benefit of the 1st proviso to Sec. 11(3) of the Act, 1965. The counsel conceded that the tenant is not challenging the concurrent finding of the lower authorities about the bonafide need of the petitioner. But, the counsel for the respondent argued that the landlord admitted to the effect that he is in possession of another room and no special reasons are mentioned by the landlord to support the order of eviction in s