A tenant's failure to establish proper tendering of rent and the landlord's bona fide need for premises support eviction under applicable tenancy laws.

The revision petitioners are the tenants of the schedule premises in the Rent Control proceedings. They have suffered an order of eviction. The respondent has filed an eviction proceedings on the ground of the non-payment of rent arrears and bonafide need of a building for his own occupation. Both the courts on the basis of the evidence, both oral and documentary have returned a finding in favour of the respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioners has strenuously argued and persuaded us to accept that having regard to Ext.B2 series showing tendering of the monthly rent payable for the period in question and not for the future, the same have not been properly appreciated by both the courts. It has also been strenuously argued that the petitioners are dependent on the income of the said property, whereas the respondent has various properties in and around the suit premises wherefrom the proposed business of the respondent would be carried without disturbing the possession of the petitioners.

2. Per contra, the learned counsel for the landlord/respondent has taken us through the discussion on the evidence on Ext.B2 series regarding the money order alleged to have been sent to the respondent by the petitioners as far as the findings of both the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority with regard to the bonafide need and has submitted that the evidence on record would conclusively establish that the respondent is in need of the premises in question for the business of the wife of the respondent.

3. We have carefully gone through the evidence on Ext.B2 series as well as on the bonafide need. Insofar as the assertion of tendering of rent prior and subsequent to the year 2014 is concerned, the petitioners have failed to establish that such rent was actually tendered to the respondent. Although an attempt is made to justify that no arrears of rent are payable on the basis of a reply dated 17.04.2018 to a legal notice issued by the respondent on 31.03.2018, but, admittedly, the procedural requirement to be followed under Section 9 (2) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act , 1965 has not been followed as in the event if there is a refusal to accept the money order, there is a requirement for the petitioners to send legal notice requiring the landlord to specify within ten days from the date of receipt of the notice by him, a Bank into which the rent could be deposited by the tenant to the credit of the landlord. There are many loops in the evidence which have discredited the petitioners in making us believe that the ground under Section 11 (2)(b) has not been made out.

4. Apart from the aforesaid, insofar as the bonafide requirement is concerned, the respondent has been able to establish that his wife require the premises for a garment shop and for that purpose the rooms are required. The evidence of RW3 on which much reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the respondent to show that there is no suitable place from where the respondent could have run their business or there are other vacant premises from which the respondent could have started his new business, has not been established as it is clear from the evidence of RW3 that the evidence is hearsay and cannot be accepted.

5. On aforesaid discussion, we do not find any reason to interfere with the well reasoned judgment of the Rent Control Court as well as the Appellate Authority. The learned counsel for the petitioners, however, submitted that having regard to the fact that the petitioners have been in occupation of the said property for a considerable period of time and the hardship that are likely to cause in the event the said order of eviction is exe