The tenant carries the burden of proof regarding arrears and bona fide business need under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act.

Johnson John, J.

The concurrent findings and orders of eviction passed under Sections 11 (2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (‘the Act’ for short) by the Rent Control Court and the appellate authority is under challenge in this revision petition filed by the tenant .

2. The landlord sought eviction under Sections 11 (2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act on the ground of arrears of rent and bona fide need. According to the landlord, the tenant kept the rent in arrears from April, 2010 onwards. The landlord wants to start a garment ready-made business in the petition schedule room and in room No.13/482 situated adjacent to it. The specific case of the landlord is that the petition schedule premises are the most suitable and convenient for the proposed business.

3. Even though, the tenant contended that there is no arrears of rent, both the authorities, after analysing the evidence, recorded a finding that the tenant has not succeeded in proving the plea of discharge of rent and we find no reason to interfere with the said finding of the Rent Control Court and the Rent Control Appellate Authority.

4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner argued that the landlord came into possession of room No.13/482 subsequent to the filing of the Rent Control Petition and the said fact was admitted by PWs 1 and 2 during cross examination. But, it is pertinent to note that the specific case of the landlord is that for the proposed business, apart from the petition schedule room, the adjacent room is also required and the said fact is also asserted by PW2 and according to PW2, the proposed business cannot be started in one room alone.

5. We find no reason to disagree with the finding of the Rent Control Court and the Rent Control Appellate Authority that the landlord cannot be compelled to start the proposed business in one room alone and the failure to start business in the available room is not sufficient to arrive at a conclusion that the need alleged is not bona fide.

6. The tenant also failed to adduce reliable evidence to prove the income derived from the business conducted in the petition schedule room and since the burden is on the tenant to prove both the ingredients of the second proviso to Section 11 (3) of the Act, we also find no reason to disagree with the findings of the Rent Control Court and the appellate authority that the tenant is not entitled for the benefit of the second proviso to (3) of the Act. We find no illegality or impropriety in the impugned orders of the Rent Control Court and the Rent Control Appellate Authority warranting interference in revision.

7. In the result, this revision petition is dismissed.