The court upheld the genuine need for eviction under the Rent Control Act, rejecting experience as a prerequisite for starting a business.

A.Muhamed Mustaque, J.

This Rent Control Revision was filed by the tenant. The landlord sought eviction under Section 11 (3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on the ground of bona fide need. The need projected before the Rent Control Court was for the occupation of the premises by the husband of the third petitioner, who intends to run a dairy farm. The Rent Control Court and the Appellant Authority appreciated the evidence and found that the need projected is genuine. The tenant contended that the husband lacks experience in running a dairy farm, as he is only an electrician. This contention was rejected by both the authorities, noting that there is no requirement that a person must possess prior experience to start a business. At some point, all entrepreneurs begin ventures without prior experience, which itself shows that experience is not a prerequisite for commencing a business. The Rent Control Court as well as the Appellate Authority appreciated the evidence in the proper perspective and also found that the tenant is not entitled to the protection under the second proviso.

2. We find no scope for interfering with the concurrent finding ordering eviction under Section 11 (3) of the Act. However, taking note of the plea made by the revision petitioner, we grant the tenant six months from today to vacate the building, subject to the following terms and conditions;

1) The revision petitioner/tenant shall undertake that he will vacate the building within six months from today. He shall file an undertaking within four weeks from today.

2) He shall pay the entire arrears within the above time and shall continue to pay the rent due till the date of delivery.

Accordingly, the Rent Control Revision stands dismissed.