The court reaffirmed that grounds for eviction can be treated independently yet jointly valid in light of established facts, clarifying procedural interpretations of relevant sections in tenancy law.

ORDER

A.M.BABU, J.

One and the same landlord filed three petitions to evict two tenants from three rooms. One of the tenants is holding two rooms under separate leases. His name is Venkiteswaran. His wife, by name Manjula, is the tenant of the third room. Eviction of Venkiteswaran was sought under Sec. 11 (3), (4) (iii) and (8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (for short 'the Act'). Manjula was sought to be evicted under Sec. 11 (3) and (8) of the Act. The trial court consolidated the three petitions for trial and disposed of the cases by a common order. The trial court directed the eviction of Venkiteswaran under Sec. 11 (4) (iii) and (8) of the Act. The petition filed against Manjula was dismissed. The landlord filed appeal against Manjula. Venkiteswaran filed appeals against the landlord. The appellate authority dismissed the appeals filed by Venkiteswaran and allowed the appeal filed against Manjula. Both the tenants are in revision.

2. The case of the landlord may be briefly stated as follows: He is running a juice shop in his own room. The remaining rooms in the same building have been tenanted to Venkiteswaran and Manjula. The landlord bona fide requires the premises occupied by Venkiteswaran and Manjula to do business in textile. The entire space occupied by the tenants is absolutely necessary for doing the business proposed. The locality is suitable to conduct textile business in wholesale and retail. The landlord has sufficient funds to start the business. The request made to the tenants to vacate the premises was not heeded to. Venkiteswaran is in possession of two rooms of his own which are reasonably sufficient for his requirement. Those rooms are just 100 metres away from the tenanted premises.

3. The tenants filed objection in each proceedings.

They admit the leases. Their contentions are stated below: The landlord has no intention to do textile business in the premises tenanted to the tenants. The landlord has no practical experience or knowledge for doing any such business. He has several other buildings in his possession in the same locality for him to do textile business if he really wants to do such a business. The income derived from the textile shop run in the tenanted premises is the main source of income of the tenants. No suitable building is available in the locality for them to shift their business.

4. Originally the ground under Sec.11 (8) of the Act was not contained in the rent control petitions. Subsequently by amendment that ground was incorporated. After amendment the tenants filed additional counter-statements. They contended that the claim under Sec.11 (8) of the Act was not maintainable inasmuch as the room where the juice shop was conducted was not a part of the building occupied by the tenants.

5. Both sides adduced evidence before the trial court.

PW1 and RW1 were examined. Exts A1 to A3, B1 and B2 and C1 to C1(b) were marked.

6. We have heard the learned counsel Sri.Abraham John and the learned counsel Sri.Sunil Shanker who appear for the landlord and the tenants respectively.

7. The learned counsel for the tenants started his arguments highlighting two technical contentions. The learned counsel submitted that the ground under Sec.11 (8) of the Act was not pressed before the trial court, but the trial court granted eviction under the said ground. The trial court has stated at paragraph 13 of its order that the landlord did not press the ground under Sec.11 (8) of the Act. The trial court said that despite the said submission made on the side of the landlord, the court would consider the ground under Sec.11 (8) since the proper ground for the landlord was the one under the said sub-section and not the one under sub-sec (3). There has been a dispute when the revisions were heard as to whether the ground under Sec.11 (8) was withdrawn by the landlord. The learned counsel for the landlord submitted that he did not withdraw the ground under Sec.11 (8). If a ground was withdrawn