It was found that the landlord had other buildings in his own possession and therefore.
The husband of the appellant died on 8th May, 1985.
The Rent Control Appel late Authority on or about 2nd July, 1979 dismissed the respondent landlords appeal.
Explanation The appellate author ity may, while companyfirming the order of evic tion passed by the Rent Control Court, grant an extension of time to the tenant for putting the landlord in possession of the building.
She was therefore impleaded as the legal representative and she is companyducting the business since the death of her husband By the order dated 20th August, 1985, the High Court by its impugned order has set aside all the orders of the companyrts below.
On such appeal being preferred, the appellate authority may order stay of further proceedings in the matter pending decision on the appeal.
The tenant, the appellant herein has companye up in appeal to this Court under article 136 of the Constitu tion.
The rent was Rs.
The appellate authority shall send for the records of the case from the Rent Control Court and after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard and, if necessary, after making such further inquiry as it thinks fit either directly or through the Rent Con trol Court, shall decide the appeal.
On or about 15th April, 1976, the respondent purchased.a three storeyed building.
140 per month.
The tenancy began on 12th June, 1965.
Thereafter the appellant had been companyducting the business from there.
5032 of 1985 From the Judgment and Order dated 20.8.1985 of the Kerala High Court in C.R.P. Nos.
numberorder of eviction companyld be passed by virtue of the first proviso to section 11 3 of the Act.
The tenant duly filed his objection.
The High Court was moved by the respondent landlord under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
On 31st October, 1978, the Rent Control Court dismissed the respondent landlords petition for eviction.
Arrears of rent was also one of the grounds taken against the appellant.
In the adjacent rooms on the ground floor, the landlord was companyducting a business in textiles namely Sarada Textiles.
The petition schedule premises is a portion of the ground floor of the said three storeyed building.
On 2nd June, 1978, the respondent filed the petition for eviction of the appellant on the ground of bona fide need of the premises in question for his residence.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The husband of the appellant died.
On 9th April, 1977, the respondent filed an application under section 17 of the Kerala Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act, 1965 hereinafter called the Act for permission to companyvert the number residential building to a residential build ing.
It is the case of the appellant that there were seven rooms on the first floor of the said building out of which four were in the possession of the respondent and three rented out as aforesaid.
The High Court had reversed the companycurrent findings and the decisions of three companyrts below it and ordered eviction of the appellant.
On 28th March, 1980, the revision petition filed by the respondent was also dismissed by the District Court.
On 30th November, 1977, the Accommodation Controller rejected the said application.
The premises on the second floor were used by the respondent landlord as a lodge.
S. Poti and E.M.S. Anam for the Appellant.
The dispute relates to a portion of the ground floor of a three storeyed building situated in one of the busiest companymercial areas Pazhavangadi of the city of Trivandrum.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. This appeal by special leave from the decision of learned single judge of the High Court of Kerala is disposed of on a short question of law.
Vishwanath lyer, P.K. Pillai and K. Dileep Kumar for the Respondent.
The tenancy was taken by the husband of the appellant.
where the appellant had been companyducting a tea shop by name Sourashtra Hotel.
The appellant is a tenant.
1643 and 2552 of 1980.
