O R D E R

Ajithkumar, J.

The petitioner is the tenant. The respondents-landladies filed R.C.P.No.47 of 2008 before the Rent Control Court (Munsiff), Vatakara seeking eviction of the petitioner under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. As per order dated 29.02.2020, the Rent Control Court ordered eviction. The petitioner filed an appeal under Section 18(1)(b) of the Act before the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Additional District Judge), Vatakara. The appeal was dismissed. The petitioner therefore filed this revision under Section 20 of the Act.

2. When this matter came up for admission today, we heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

3. The respondents sought eviction of the petitioner from the petition schedule shop room on the ground of bona fide need for own occupation stating that the 2nd respondent wants to start a tailoring shop cum outlet for sale of churidar materials.

4. The tenant filed a counter statement contending that the need urged by the respondent was not bona fide. There was no need or necessity for the 2nd respondent to conduct a tailoring shop or a business. The petitioner has been depending for his livelihood on the income derived from the business of dried coconut kernel in the petition schedule shop room. There is no other suitable room or building available in the locality to shift that business.

5. Evidence in the case comprises oral testimonies of PWs.1 to 3, RW1, Exts.A1 to A4, B1 to B5 and X1.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that the finding of the courts below that the need urged by the respondent was honest and bona fide, is not on the basis of any reliable evidence. Also, it is contended that the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act should have been found in favour of the petitioners. The legal contention raised by the petitioner is that since rent was fixed as Rs. 825/- in 2016 by mutual consent, he is entitled for immunity from eviction for a period of five years in the light of the decision in Mohammad Ahmad and another v. Atma Ram Chauhan and others [(2011) 7 SCC 755].

7. The protection from eviction entitled by a tenant as per the decision of the Apex Court in Mohammad Ahmad (supra) is for a period of five years from the date of fixation of the fair rent by mutual consent. PWs.2 and 3 are the tenants in the neighbouring shop rooms. They stated that they are paying rent at the rate of Rs.8,000/- and Rs.7,000/- respectively. RW1, the petitioner, admitted that the rooms in occupation of RWs.2 and 3 are similar to the petition schedule shop room. In view of that matter, it cannot be said that the monthly rent of Rs. 825/- being paid by the petitioner is fair or prevailing market rent. Hence, the petitioners cannot be heard to contend that he is entitled to the benefit of the decision in Mohammad Ahmad.

8. The bona fides of the need urged by the respondent was assailed by the petitioners contending that he has no necessity to start a tailoring shop, especially when it is seen from Ext.A3 that the 2nd respondent is already a member of Kerala Tailoring Workers' Welfare Fund Board. The 2nd respondent deposed in court as PW1 that she remained jobless and wanted to start a tailoring shop along with business in churidar materials. The fact that she is a member Kerala Tailoring Workers' Welfare Fund Board, which is an undisputed fact, would substantiate that she put forth the need with bona fides. She has enough experience and therefore, she can successfully conduct such a business.

9. Section 11 of the Act deals with eviction of tenants.

As per Section 11(1), notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract a tenant shall not be evicted, whether in execution of a decree or otherwise, except in accordance with the provisions of this Act. As per Section 11(3) of the Act, a landlord may apply to the Rent Control Court, for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession