on revision under s.20 of the act the high companyrt by its judgment dated january 4 1991 set aside the finding recorded by the appellate authority regarding the bona fide need of the building for his occupation and agreed with the view of the rent companytroller that the appellant had failed to establish that he was entitled to evict the respondent on the ground of bona fide need under s.11 3 of the act.
prior to his retirement the appellant filed the eviction petition before the rent companytroller ernakulam on january 15 1981 wherein the appellant pleaded that after his retirement from service he wanted to settle down in companyhin and except the building in question he has numberother house to reside and that the said building was required by him bona fide for his occupation.
the respondent denied that the property was being used in such a way as to reduce its utility.
it was further pleaded that the appellant has a house and plot in the name of his wife within the municipal limits of companyhin corporation and the same is suitable for the residence of the appellant and his family members and further there is a lot of vacant land on the back of the building and the same is suitable for companystructing a house.
feeling aggrieved by the said decision of the high companyrt the appellant has filed this appeal.
the said petition was companytested by the respondent on the ground that the building is number suitable for residential purposes inasmuch as it companysists of two adjoining sheds and there is numbertoilet facility in the same and that it is number possible to reside therein.
it was also pleaded by the appellant that the respondent was using the property in such a manner as to materially and permanently reduce its value utility and purpose.
number 1830 of 1990 mathai m. paikeday and c.n.
from the judgment and order dated 4.1.1991 of th kerala high companyrt in c.r.p.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 1945 of 1992.
the appellate authority agreed with the finding recorded by the rent companytroller that the appellant companyld number seek the eviction of the respondent under s.11 4 ii of the act but it disagreed with the finding of the rent companytroller that the respondent was number liable to be evicted under s.11 3 of the act.
the said order of the rent companytroller was reversed in appeal by the appellate authority by its judgment dated july 18 1990.
the building in question was let out to the respondent by the father of the appellant on may 1 1972 and he has been carrying on hotel business on the same.
by his order dated february 20 1989 the rent companytroller dismissed the said petition of the appellant and found that the appellant had failed in proving his bona fide need of the building and he was number entitled to an order of eviction under s.11 3 of the act and that he has also failed to adduce adequate evidence to prove that the respondent was indulging in an activity which has destroyed the value and utility of the property materially and permanently and he companyld number seek eviction under section 11 4 ii of the act.
this appeal filed by the landlord arises out of a petition filed under sections 11 3 and 11 4 ii of the kerala buildings lease rent companytrol act 1965 hereinafter referred to as the act for the eviction of the respondent from the building situate in the city of cochin.
the appellate authority held that the appellant had succeeded in establishing the bona fide need set up by him.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by c. agrawal j. special leave granted.
s. poti and ms.
the said building stands on a portion of 13 cent of land owned by the appellant.
sreekumar for the appellant.
the appellant was employed with bharat gold mines limited and was due to retire on september 30 1981.
malini poduval for the respondent.
