Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.
1. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the caveator.
2. The tenant of a shop room governed by the provisions of Act 2 of 1965 is the revision petitioner. The application for eviction was filed on three grounds. The only ground that survives now for consideration in the revision of the tenant is the plea of the landlord that he bona fide needs the premises for own occupation to conduct a business of ready made garments. That plea projected under Section 11(3) was concurrently upheld by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority. The tenant was found not entitled to the protection of the 2nd proviso to Section 11(3). Nor was the 1st proviso to Section 11 (3) of any substantial defence.
3. The crux of the revision is that the Rent Control Petition appears to be only a ruse to evict, since the landlord, while tendering oral evidence had answered a question in cross examination in the affirmative, when he was asked as to whether he would have started business in the petition scheduled shop room, if that shop room had generated rent at par with the rent being paid for other rooms belonging to the landlord. The Rent Control Court being the court of first instance and the Appellate Authority being court of full-fledged appellate authority in terms of Section 18 had pointedly appreciated the contents of the deposition of PW1 and had concluded that there was no admission that the landlord would withdraw the Rent Control Petition, if the tenant pays higher rent. On the totality of the facts and the materials on record, the Appellate Authority and the Rent Control Court found that the application is not a ruse to evict and the landlord has justifiable reasons for the bona fide need projected by him.
4. If a person has different shop rooms which have been let out to different persons and the income derived by way of rent from one shop room is meager, we cannot see that it is a ruse to evict the tenant of that room, if the landlord otherwise establishes his bona fide need to commence and carry on business of his choice from that premises. That having been established in the case in hand to the satisfaction of the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority, concurrently, we do not find our way to disturb that finding and resultant conclusion in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction under Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965. There is also no ground to interfere with the refusal of protection under the provisos to Section 11(3) of Act 2 of 1965. This revision, therefore, fails.
In the result,
(a) This revision is dismissed.
(b) Revision petitioner is granted eight months' time from today to vacate the premises and deliver possession to the landlords on the following conditions:
i. Petitioner remits the entire arrears of rent as on today before the executing court within six weeks from today and files an affidavit before the executing court within six weeks from today, unconditionally undertaking to surrender vacant possession of the premises to the landlords within eight months from today.
ii. He pays charges towards use and occupation of the building at the current rent rate from today till he gives vacant possession of the premises to the landlords.
(c) Execution proceedings, if any, pending before the executing court shall be kept in abeyance for a period of eight months.
(d) If there is default in performing any of the conditions imposed in clause (b) above, the benefit given to the tenant as per this order will stand recalled automatically and the executing court shall effect delivery forthwith.
Sd/-
(THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) Sd/-
(BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JUDGE) //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE DG