Establishment of bonafide need for eviction under Section 11(3) requires concrete evidence from the landlord, which was upheld in this case.

Soumen Sen, C. J.

The concurrent findings of facts with regard to the bonafide need of the landlord under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control Act, 1965), (‘the Act’ for short) is challenged in this Revision Petition.

2. The Revisional Court exercises much more limited jurisdiction than a court of appeal, and it is within the confines of such limitation, that the revisional court has to exercise its jurisdiction. The scope of the revision is therefore, required to be looked into.

3. The respondent herein is the landlord of the building in question. The respondent-landlord filed an eviction proceeding under Section 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act. Before the trial court the landlord failed to establish the ground under Section 11(2), however, was able to establish the bonafide need under Section 11(3) of the said Act. This order was challenged before the Appellate Court.

4. The Appellate Court considered the pleadings and the evidence, both oral and documentary, and returned a finding that the Rent Control Court was justified in allowing eviction on the ground of bonafide requirement.

3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant has submitted that the Appellate Court has failed to take into consideration that in the premises of the building there is big space of almost 1000 square feet available and accordingly, the contention of the respondent/landlord that he requires the room of the tenant which consists of approximately 500 sq. feet is a ruse to evict the revision petitioner/tenant. However, this aspect of the matter has been gone into detail by the Rent Control Court as well as the Appellate Court.

4. Although it was alleged by the revision petitioner/tenant that there are suitable accommodations for the respondent/landlord where the business could be done, he failed to establish that in fact the landlord has any other suitable accommodation. On the contrary, the landlord was able to establish that his ancestral house was required to be demolished, where he was running his business and for the purpose of his office, he would not require a space more than 500 square feet. The landlord cannot be asked to use the 1000 square feet that may available to him for running his business as he could let out the said property on more money for his better living. The need of the respondent/landlord being established in the appeal by cogent evidence and having regard to the fact that the claim is genuine and not illusory, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Appellate Court in this revisional jurisdiction. The possession has already been delivered. The Revision Petition stands dismissed.

In view of the fact that the satisfaction of the decree is yet to be recorded in the execution proceeding, it will be open for the revision petitioner/tenant to apply before the executing court for removal of his belongings, documents and any other materials. The executing court is requested to consider his prayer and dispose of the said petition at the earliest and records satisfaction. We make it clear that in the event such application is not filed within a week, it shall be presumed that the revision petitioner/tenant is not interested to remove the materials and the executing court shall record the satisfaction of the decree.

Sd/-