Court affirmed tenant's lack of grounds for appeal under the Kerala Rent Control Act, dismissing the petition.

A. Muhamed Mustaque, J.

This revision petition is filed by the tenant challenging the concurrent findings under Sections 11 (2)(b), and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short, ‘the Act’). The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the tenant has already cleared all the defaulted arrears covering the period mentioned in the statutory notice and, therefore, the order passed under Section 11 (2) (b) of the Act is liable to be vacated. If the tenant has, in fact, cleared the entire arrears covering the notice period, he may file a petition under (2)(c) of the Act seeking to have that order vacated.

2. In regard to the findings under Section 11 (3) of the Act, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that the building belongs to a partnership and, therefore, the respondent is not competent to maintain the petition. It is to be noted that this argument is contrary to the very recitals in Ext. A1, the document executed by the tenant.

Ext. A1 was executed between the tenant and the respondent, and therefore the tenant cannot contend otherwise so as to question the status of the respondent as the landlord. Hence, the contention raised by the tenant fails.

3. The Rent Control Court examined the matter of bona fide need in its proper perspective by analysing the pleadings and evidence, and found that the bona fide need projected is genuine. The landlord had projected bona fide need for starting a furniture business. The Rent Control Court as well as the Rent Control Appellate Authority found that the tenant is not entitled for protection under Second proviso to Section 11 (3) of the Act. All the findings are against the tenant, and in such circumstances, we find no scope to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the revision petition stands dismissed.