The three landlords thereafter filed a petition for the ejectment of the tenant s under Sections 11 2 , 11 3 and 11 4 i of the Kerala Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act 1965 hereinafter called the Act alleging therein that the tenant was in arrears of rent, that he had sub leased the premises without the knowledge or companysent of the landlords and finally that the sisters needed the premises for their own use and occupation as it had to be demolished to widen the pathway leading to the building that was situated behind the demised premises.
The issues raised by the landlords were companytroverted by the tenant, who pleaded that the room had been let out to him on 1.1.1982, that there were numberarrears of rent as claimed, that numbersub lease had been created, that there was numberother suitable place to which he companyld shift his business as his only source of income was generated from the demised premises and, finally, that the landlords plea that the premises had to be demolished to widen the pathway did number companystitute personal necessity.
HARJIT SINGH BEDI,J This appeal by special leave arises out of the following facts The petitioners before the Rent Controller brother and sisters respectively are the owners of the premises in question.
On 1.1.1984 by an oral agreement, the premises were rented out to the appellant tenants herein for a period of three months, by the original sole landlord Akkali Purushothaman.
On 23.4.1991 Akkali Purushothaman gifted the demised premises to his two sisters.
These premises companysisted of just one room situated in front of another residential building belonging to the two sisters.
