The bona fide need of a landlady under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, outweighs the tenant's assertions of mala fides.

A. Muhamed Mustaque, J.

The revision petitioner – tenant challenges the concurrent order of eviction passed under Section 11 (3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 , (for short “Act”). The landlady is a widow with two children, a son and a daughter. The landlady’s son is conducting a stationery business in a room in her possession, which is the sole source of income for the family. The son is unmarried. The landlady sought eviction of the tenant in order to start a Ladies Fancy Store-cum- Ladies Tailoring Centre. According to her, the income generated from her son’s business is insufficient to meet the family’s expenses.

2. The Rent Control Court as well as the Rent Control Appellate Authority considered the evidence and concluded that the landlady's need was genuine. The tenant failed to establish any mala fide intent or motives on the part of the landlady in seeking eviction. Further, the tenant did not prove the necessary conditions for protection under the second proviso to Section 11 (3) of the Act.

3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner –

tenant vehemently argued before this Court, and would submit that subsequent to the filing of the rent control petition, the landlady had obtained vacant possession of another room, and therefore, it could be concluded that there was no bona fide need.

4. The learned counsel for the landlady fairly admitted that a subsequent petition was filed, projecting the need of her daughter to start a business, and that this would in no way affect the bona fide need projected in the petition for eviction.

5. It is to be noted that the tenant does not contend that the landlady was in possession of any other building at the time of filing the rent control petition so as to warrant an enquiry under the first proviso to Section 11 (3) of the Act. There is no allegation that the landlady suppressed the possession of any other building. The subsequent event, even though not placed before this Court, cannot have much bearing, particularly in the absence of any evidence to show that the landlady had possession of other vacant rooms in the building.

6. We decline to admit this matter and to interfere with the findings of fact. Accordingly, this revision petition fails and is dismissed. However, the tenant is granted six months time to vacate the building on the following terms and conditions.