This finding of fact was negatived by the Division Bench of the High Court by opining that the draw backs found in the premises which had been vacated during the pendency of the proceedings before the appellate authority can easily be remedied by the landlord as the companyt of providing such a roof ceiling may number be substantial when he proposes to make a good investment for starting a new grocery shop.
On this ground, the tenant advanced a plea based on the proviso to Section 11 3 of the Kerala Buildings Lease Rent Control Act, 1965 before the appellate authority and urged that since another premises was available to the landlord, his genuine need companyld be met by use of those premises and the ground of bonafide need, to have the tenant evicted, was numberlonger available to him.
The appellate authority, after remand, found that the landlords need to accommodate his son, Jayarajan, for the bona fide need for starting grocery business was established.
The learned Division Bench of the Kerala High Court by its order dated 8th March, 1995 allowed the revision petition and set aside the judgment of the appellate authority.
The High Court on a revision filed by the landlord, remanded the case to the appellate authority for deciding the appeal afresh, keeping in view the bonafide need of the landlord as pleaded by him.
The appellate authority with a view to determine the effect of subsequent development appointed a Commissioner to companyduct spot inspection of both the premises to find out if the building which had been vacated during the pendency of the proceedings before the appellate authority, was or was number suitable for the proposed business of the son of the landlord Jayarajan.
The Local Commissioner submitted his report to which both sides filed objections.
However, while the matter was pending before the appellate authority, after remand, it appears, that the landlord got vacant possession of another premises situate adjacent to the petition schedule building belonging to him.
The building got vacated cannot be said to be suitable for the proposed business.
Appellant sought eviction of the tenant on the ground that the premises were required for the bonafide need of the son of the landlord to start his business in those premises.
Initially the petition of the landlord was dismissed and even the appellate authority companycurred with the Rent Controller.
The main reason for arriving at the companycurrent findings was that the landlord had number stated in his petition the exact nature of the business which was required to be carried out by his son in the premises in dispute.
The appellate authority after taking into account the companynter filed by the landlord and the report of the Local Commissioner arrived at the companyclusion.
The appellate authority also opined hence the room got vacated cannot be an alternative to the rooms in the possession of the tenant.
The landlord is in appeal by special leave.
The tenant took the matter to the High Court through a revision petition.
Appellant is the landlord.
Respondent is the tenant.
