The court clarified the criteria for eviction under the Rent Control Act, focusing on arrears and the bona fide requirement for occupation.

O R D E R

Pius C.Kuriakose, J.

The tenants are in revision being aggrieved by the order of eviction concurrently passed by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority on the ground of arrears of rent under Section 11 (2) (b) and bona fide need for own occupation under Section 11 (3) of Act 2 of 1965. The parties will be referred to as the landlady and the tenants. The allegation of the landlady in the context of ground under Section 11 (2) (b) was that the contract rent is Rs.1,000/- per month and that the same is in arrears from 1-2-2006 and that in spite of a statutory demand notice, the tenants did not pay the same. The above allegation was disputed so also the contract rent was disputed and it was contended that the same is only Rs.600/- per month. The landlady's case in the context of the eviction ground under sub section (3) of Section 11 was that the landlady and her husband RCR.No.291/2009 2 are doing business in shares for the last several years and that they wanted to continue the business in a more suitable building. Hence it was urged that the petition schedule building is needed bona fide for occupation by the landlady and her husband, so that they can conduct share trading business. The tenants disputed the bona fides of the need. They also claimed that they are entitled to the protection of the second proviso of sub section (3) of Section 11 . Relying on the first proviso to sub section Section (3) of Section 11 , it was contended that the RCP is liable to be dismissed since the landlady was already in vacant possession of two rooms viz. rooms having door numbers 16/1688 & 16/1692. The contention was that in the absence of the said reason justifying the order of eviction, the eviction order would not be passed even if the need is found to be bona fide. The Rent Control Court enquired into the matter and at trial the evidence consisted of Exts.A1 to A17 and the oral testimonies of PW1 landlady and PW2 landlady's husband and RW1 the tenant. The Rent Control Court on evaluating the evidence came to the conclusion that the rent was in arrears as alleged by the landlady and passed order of eviction under Section 11 (2) (b).

RCR.No.291/2009 3 Similarly, the Rent Control Court also found that the need projected by the landlady was bona fide. It was noticed that the landlady came to have possession of the building having door number 16/1692 during the pendency of the rent control proceedings. However, according to that court non occupation of that building by the landlady was not a circumstance indicative of absence of bona fide since that building was closest in proximity to the retail outlet of the beverages corporation and also since the road frontage for that building unlike that of the petition schedule building was less. It was therefore held that the petition was not liable to fail by virtue of the 1st proviso to Section 11 (3). It was also held that the tenants had failed in establishing that they satisfied either of the ingredients of the second proviso to sub Section (3) of Section 11 . Accordingly, the Rent Control Court passed the order of eviction under sub Section (3) of Section 11 .

2. The tenants preferred an appeal to the Rent Control Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority reappraised the evidence and practically concurred with all the conclusions of the Rent Control Court except to the extent the same pertain to the RCR.No.291/2009 4 finding regarding the contract rent. The Appellate Authority found that the contract rent is Rs.600/-. The order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court was confirmed with the above modification.

3. In this revision under Section 20, the tenants have raised various grounds. Assailing the judgment of the Appellate Authority, Sri. Sunil Nair Palakat, learned counsel for the revision petitioners/tenants submitted on 7/12/2009, when we considered the RCR for admission, that in the rent control appeal additional documents were produced for showing that