The tenants companytested the petition denying that the daughter and son in law are number dependent on the respondent.
An appeal against the said judgment was unsucessful before the Rent Control Appellate Authority District Judge , Thalassery.
The appellants are the tenants of a shop room.
The respondents filed petition for eviction of the appellant under Section 11 3 of the Act which is set out hereunder 11 3 .
A landlord may apply to the Rent Control Court for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building if he bona fide needs the building for his own occupation or for the occupation by any member of his family dependent on him Provided that the Rent Control Court shall number give any such direction if the landlord has another building of his own in his possession in the same city, town or village except where the Rent Control Court is satisfied that for special reasons in any particular case it will be just and proper to do so Provided further that the Rent Control Court shall number give any direction to a tenant to put the landlord in possession, if such tenant is depending for his livelihood mainly on the income derived from any trade or business carried on in such building and there is numbersuitable building available in the locality for such person to carry on such trade or business Provided xxxx xxxx xxxx Provided xxxx xxxx xxxx A plain reading of the provision of sub section 3 of Section 11 shows that it enables a landlord to seek possession of the building from his tenant by making an application to the Rent Control Court if he bona fide needs the building for his own occupation or for the occupation by a member of his family dependent on him.
2001 Supp 3 SCR 349 The following Order of the Court was delivered In this appeal, by special leave, the order of the High Court of Kerala in R.P. No.
The tenants also denied the bona fide requirement of the landlords.
The learned Rent Controller having companysidered the material placed on record found that the need of the landlords was bona fide and accordingly ordered eviction of the tenants on December 21, 1993.
The respondents are the landlords.
95 of 1995 in the High Court of Kerala which was also dismissed by the impugned order.
The original tenant died and the appellants are his legal representatives hereinafter they are referred to as the tenants .
They filed an application under sub section 3 of Section 11 of the Kerala Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act, 1965 for short the Act for eviction of the tenants on the ground that they bona fide need the premises for setting up business of their daughter and son in law who are dependent on them.
95 of 1995 dated October 11, 1996, is brought under challenge.
