The court affirmed that a genuine need of the landlord under Section 11(3) justifies eviction despite tenant's claims of mala fides.

O R D E R

A.Muhamed Mustaque, J.

The tenant, questioning an order passed by the Rent Controller under Section 11 (3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act , 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), had approached the Rent Control Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority also affirmed the order of eviction. Challenging the concurrent orders of eviction, the tenant has approached this Court. There was a delay of 202 days in filing the revision, for which condonation was sought. The need projected is for starting a juice shop and bakery by the daughter of the landlord. The Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority found that the need projected is genuine. The tenant also failed to invoke the protection under the second proviso to (3) of the Act.

2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner argued that the Rent Control Petition was filed with mala fides. However, the tenant failed to establish any mala fides on the part of the landlord.

3. In such circumstances, we affirm the order of eviction and grant four months' time for the tenant to vacate the building, subject to the following terms and conditions:

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

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

3) Needless to say, failing to comply with any one of the conditions stated above, the time limit granted by this order to surrender vacant possession of the petition-scheduled shop room will stand cancelled automatically, and the landlord will be at liberty to proceed with the execution of the order of eviction.

Accordingly, the Rent Control Revision fails and it is, accordingly, dismissed.