P. T. Abdul Gafoor v. Thalayankandi Tharikutty Haji

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANNIE JOHN** **THURSDAY ,THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 3RD KARTHIKA, 1940** **RCRev..No. 232 of 2018** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 17-03-2018 IN RCA 41/2014 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, KANNUR** **AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19-11-2013 IN RCP 166/2010 of RENT CONTROL COURT, KANNUR** ## **REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:** **MR.P.T.ABDUL GAFOOR, S/O O.C ABDULLA, AGED 64 YEARS,MANAGING PARTNER, M/S SENSI, CAMBAZAR, KANNUR-1.** **BY ADVS.SRI.C.R.SYAMKUMAR SMT.V.A.HARITHA SRI.K.ARJUN VENUGOPAL SRI.P.A.MOHAMMED SHAH SRI.R.NANDAGOPAL SRI.SOORAJ T.ELENJICKAL** ## **R ESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COUNTER PETITIONER:** **THALAYANKANDI THARIKUTTY HAJI, S/O UMMERKUTTY, AGED 84 YEARS,RESIDING AT KOODALI AMSOM, KOODALI DESOM, KANNUR DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS.SMT. SARITHA THOMAS SRI.ALEX.M.SCARIA** **THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25.10.2018, ALONG WITH RCRev..243/2018, RCRev..242/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **RCRev. Nos.232, 242 & 243 of 2018** **-:2:-** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANNIE JOHN** **THURSDAY ,THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 3RD KARTHIKA, 1940 RCRev..No. 243 of 2018** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 17-03-2018 IN RCA 42/2014 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, KANNUR** **AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19-11-2013 IN RCP 168/2010 of RENT CONTROL COURT, KANNUR** ## **REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:** **MR.P.T.ABDUL GAFOOR, S/O O.C ABDULLA, AGED 64 YEARS,MANAGING PARTNER, M/S SENSI, CAMBAZAR, KANNUR-1.** **BY ADVS.SRI.C.R.SYAMKUMAR SMT.V.A.HARITHA SRI.K.ARJUN VENUGOPAL SRI.P.A.MOHAMMED SHAH SRI.R.NANDAGOPAL SRI.SIDHARTH B PRASAD SRI.SOORAJ T.ELENJICKAL** ## **R ESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COUNTER PETITIONER:** **MR. THALAYANKANDI THARIKUTTY HAJI S/O.UMMERKUTTY, AGED 84 YEARS,RESIDING AT KOODALI AMSOM, KOODALI DESOM, KANNUR DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.ALEX.M.SCARIA** **THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25.10.2018, ALONG WITH RCRev..242/2018, RCRev..232/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **RCRev. Nos.232, 242 & 243 of 2018** **-:3:-** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANNIE JOHN** **THURSDAY ,THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 3RD KARTHIKA, 1940** **RCRev..No. 242 of 2018** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 17-03-2018 IN RCA 43/2014 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, KANNUR** **AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19-11-2013 IN RCP 164/2010 of RENT CONTROL COURT, KANNUR** ## **REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:** **MR.P.T.ABDUL GAFOOR, S/O O.C ABDULLA, AGED 64 YEARS,MANAGING PARTNER, M/S SENSI, CAMBAZAR, KANNUR-1.** **BY ADVS.SRI.C.R.SYAMKUMAR SMT.V.A.HARITHA** **SRI.K.ARJUN VENUGOPAL SRI.P.A.MOHAMMED SHAH SRI.R.NANDAGOPAL SRI.SIDHARTH B PRASAD SRI.SOORAJ T.ELENJICKAL** ## **R ESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COUNTER PETITIONER:** **MR.THALAYANKANDI THARIKUTTY HAJI S/O.UMMERKUTTY, AGED 84 YEARS,RESIDING AT KOODALI AMSOM,KOODALI DESOM, KANNUR DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.ALEX.M.SCARIA** **THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25.10.2018, ALONG WITH RCRev..243/2018, RCRev..232/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **RCRev. Nos.232, 242 & 243 of 2018** ## **-:4:-** ## **O R D E R** **[ RCRev. 232/2018, RCRev..243/2018, RCRev..242/2018 ]** ## **K.Harilal, J** **Since the parties and matters in issue are common, all these revision petitions are heard together and disposed of accordingly.** **2. The revision petitioner is the tenant and the respondent is the landlord. [The parties ae referred to as in the Rent Control Petition.]** **3. The petitioner filed R.C.P. Nos.164 of 2010, 166 of 2010 and 168 of 2010 before the Rent Control Court, Kannur, under Sections 11(3) and 11(4)(iii)of the Kerala Buildings(Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965** _**(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act')**_ **, seeking an order of eviction.** **4. The respondent resisted all the revision petitions and after considering the evidence on record, the Rent Control Court dismissed all the** **RCRev. Nos.232, 242 & 243 of 2018** ## **-:5:-** **rent control petitions, on a finding that the claim for eviction under Section 11(3) is hit by the first proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act, and the daughter of the landlord is not a dependent of the landlord.** **5. According to the averments in the rent control petitions, the petitioner/landlord** _**bona fide**_ **needs the petition schedule shop rooms for starting a textile and fashion designing shop in the petition schedule shop rooms, for his daughter. His daughter has completed B.Sc. Degree in fashion designing and now she is unemployed and having no avocation of her own. All the shop rooms are adjacent to each other. Therefore, the petition schedule shop rooms are suitable for starting the said business. Neither the petitioner/landlord nor the dependent has any other buildings of their own in their** **RCRev. Nos.232, 242 & 243 of 2018** ## **-:6:-** **possession, to start the said business. His daughter 'Jasmine' is depending upon him, for the above referred three rooms in the rent control petitions, for starting the said business; whereas several other vacant shop rooms are available in the locality to shift the respondent's business from the petition schedule shop rooms. So also, the respondent/tenant is not depending mainly on the income from the business in the tenanted premises. Further, it is contended that the respondent/tenant has subsequently acquired possession of another shop room and in that shop room, he has been conducting the business under the name and style 'Riva ready-mades'. Thus, the petitioner/landlord is entitled to get an order of eviction under Sections 11(3) and 11(4)(iii) of the Act.** **6. The respondent/tenant resisted the** **RCRev. Nos.232, 242 & 243 of 2018** ## **-:7:-** **claim for eviction under Sections 11(3) and 11(4)(iii) of the Act, contending that the need projected in the petition is not** _**bona fide**_ **and it is a ruse for eviction only. According to the respondent/tenant, the daughter of the petitioner/landlord is not a dependent for the petition schedule shop rooms. Further, it is contended that he is depending mainly on the income derived from the petition schedule shop rooms and no other vacant buildings are available in the locality, to shift his business. He denied the allegation that he has subsequently acquired possession of another building and in that building he has been conducting ready-made garments business, by name 'Riva Garments'. It is also contended that in the very same shopping complex, the petitioner's daughter Jasmine has three other shop rooms of her own** **RCRev. Nos.232, 242 & 243 of 2018** ## **-:8:-** **in her ownership and those three rooms are also facing 'Rajiv Gandhi Road'. Thus, the daughter of the petitioner/landlord is not a dependent, for the petition schedule shop rooms and the claim for eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act, is hit by the first proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. In the aforesaid averments, the respondent/tenant sought for dismissal of the rent control petitions.** **7. On the rival pleading, both parties adduced evidence and after considering the evidence on record, the Rent Control Court dismissed the claim for eviction under Sections 11(3) and 11(4)(iii) of the Act. But, in appeal, the Rent Control Appellate Authority reversed the findings under both Sections 11(3) and 11(4)(iii) of the Act, and granted an order of eviction under both provisions. Thus, the legality and propriety** **RCRev. Nos.232, 242 & 243 of 2018** ## **-:9:-** **of the divergent findings, whereby the Rent Control Court dismissed the petitions and the Rent Control Appellate Authority granted an order of eviction, have come up in revision before us.** **8. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.** **9. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant advanced arguments, challenging the findings, whereby the Rent Control Appellate Authority reversed the findings of the Rent Control Court. The learned counsel mainly canvassed the point that the Rent Control Appellate Authority went wrong by finding that the daughter of the petitioner is a dependent on him and the claim for eviction is not hit by the first proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. According to the** **RCRev. Nos.232, 242 & 243 of 2018** ## **-:10:-** **learned counsel, it has come out in evidence that the daughter of the petitioner/landlord has three other shop rooms in her ownership in the same shopping complex and those shop rooms are also similarly situated, as that of the petition schedule shop rooms. But, there is no pleadings disclosing the ownership of the aforesaid shop rooms under the dependent or the special reasons for not occupying those shop rooms for the proposed business.** **10. It is further submitted that the petitioner/landlord has not discharged the burden of proof under the first proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act, to prove that the shop rooms are not vacant or not suitable for the proposed business. But, the Rent Control Appellate Authority erroneously arrived at a finding that, without any basis or evidence that those alternative shop rooms in the** **RCRev. Nos.232, 242 & 243 of 2018** ## **-:11:-** **ownership of the dependent are not suitable or vacant for the occupation of the dependent. So also, the Rent Control Court, without any evidence arrived at a finding that the roads passing through the front side of the petition schedule shop rooms and the alternative shop rooms in the ownership of the dependent are not similar.** **11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioner/landlord advanced arguments to justify the findings, whereby the Rent Control Appellate Authority reversed the findings of the Rent Control Court. According to him, there is sufficient evidence to prove that the shop rooms in the ownership of the daughter of the petitioner/landlord are not vacant and those shop rooms are not similarly situated, as that of the petition schedule shop rooms. According to him, the burden of proof under** **RCRev. Nos.232, 242 & 243 of 2018** ## **-:12:-** **the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act is on the tenant only, and the lack of pleadings disclosing the availability of shop rooms in the possession of the dependent is not fatal, in view of the legal position settled by the decisions of this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court.** **12. As regards the findings under Section 11(4)(iii) of the Act, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant submitted that the Rent Control Appellate Authority went wrong by finding that the shop rooms under the co-ownership also would fall under Section 11(4)(iii) of the Act and the said finding is against the legal position settled by this Court in** _**Thalayodi Raghavan v. Koorantavitta Kelappan and Others**_ **[2005 KHC 1936].** **13. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner/landlord submits that it** **RCRev. Nos.232, 242 & 243 of 2018** ## **-:13:-** **has come out in evidence that subsequently the tenant has got possession of two other shop rooms and he has been conducting business in those shop rooms.** **14. In view of the arguments at the Bar, the question to be considered is, whether there is any illegality or impropriety in the findings, whereby the Rent Control Appellate Authority reversed the findings of the Rent Control Court and granted an order of eviction under Sections 11(3) and 11(4)(iii) of the Act?** **15. Going by the order dismissing the rent control petitions passed by the Rent Control Court, it could be seen that the Rent Control Court rejected the claim for eviction under Section 11(3)of the Act, on a finding that the petitioner/landlord has failed to plead and prove the dependency of the daughter of the** **RCRev. Nos.232, 242 & 243 of 2018** ## **-:14:-** **petitioner/landlord for the petition schedule shop rooms. Further, it was found that the daughter of the petitioner/landlord for whose requirement the order of eviction is sought, has three other shop rooms and those shop rooms are similarly situated, as that of the petition schedule shop rooms. But, the petitioner/landlord has failed to establish the special reason for not occupying those rooms for the proposed business, according to the respondent/tenant.** **16. As regards the claim for eviction under Section 11(4)(iii) of the Act, it has come out in evidence that the subsequently acquired shop rooms are under the co-ownership of the wife of the tenant with his close relatives and there is no evidence to prove that those shop rooms are in the exclusive occupation of the tenant.** **RCRev. Nos.232, 242 & 243 of 2018** ## **-:15:-** **17. Coming to the findings of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, the Rent Control Appellate Authority found that three other shop rooms allegedly in the ownership of the daughter of the petitioner/landlord are not suitable and not vacant. Therefore, it cannot be said that the daughter of the petitioner is not a dependent for the petition schedule shop rooms. Further, the Rent Control Appellate Authority observed that the need projected is** _**bona fide.**_ **18. As regards the claim for eviction under Section 11(4)(iii) of the Act, the Rent Control Appellate Authority reversed the findings of the Rent Control Court, on a finding that the subsequently acquired shop rooms, which stand under the co-ownership** **would not fall under Section 11(4)(iii) of the Act and the Rent Control Court went wrong by** **RCRev. Nos.232, 242 & 243 of 2018** ## **-:16:-** **finding that the subsequently acquired building under the co-ownership also would fall under Section 11(4)(iii) of the Act. 19. Going by the order and judgment passed by the courts below, it has come out in evidence that the daughter of the petitioner/ landlord has three other shop rooms of her own in the same shopping complex. It is true that the ownership of those buildings is not disclosed in the pleadings. But, in view of the legal position well settled by this Court in** _**Kunhamina v. K.T. Abubacker Haji**_ **[2016 KHC 639]and** _**Kunju v. Fathima**_ **[2014(3) KLT 563], the non disclosure of the availability of another building in the possession of the landlord is not fatal. In this decisions, this Court held that, even if the landlord did not disclose the availability of another building in his own possession, if the materials were placed** ## **RCRev. Nos.232, 242 & 243 of 2018** ## **-:17:-** **before the Court and he had given special reason for not occupying the same and both parties have adduced evidence on that aspect understanding the case of each other, then no prejudice would be caused to the tenant on account of the non disclosure of the fact in the rent control petition and it is for the court, to consider the suitability of the pleading. Further, in** _**Kunju's**_ **case(supra) this Court further held that “it cannot be understood from the first proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act that the landlords need to plead the particulars of all the premises under their ownership and possession to claim an order of eviction. The proviso only recites that the Rent Control Court shall not order eviction, if the landlord has another building of his own in his possession, without satisfying the special reasons for not** **RCRev. Nos.232, 242 & 243 of 2018** ## **-:18:-** **occupying the vacant premises”.** **20. In view of the legal position as settled above, this Court also finds that non disclosure of the ownership of three other shop rooms under the ownership of the daughter of the petitioner/landlord is not fatal, particularly, when the petitioner/landlord himself has admitted the ownership of those buildings in his evidence.** **21. The next point to be considered is, whether the Rent Control Court is justified in finding that the claim for eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act is not hit by the first proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act and the daughter of the petitioner/landlord is a dependent of the petitioner/landlord for the petition schedule shop rooms. We have meticulously gone through the oral testimony of PWs.1, 2 and RW.1. Even though the** **RCRev. Nos.232, 242 & 243 of 2018** ## **-:19:-** **ownership of three other shop rooms in the same shopping complex under the daughter of the petitioner/landlord is not disclosed in the pleadings, the petitioner/landlord as well as the dependent admitted the same in their evidence.** **22. Then, the point to be considered is, whether those shop rooms under the ownership of the daughter of the petitioner/landlord are vacant and suitable for the proposed business? It has come out in evidence that the petition schedule shop rooms are facing the road by name 'M.A. Road' and three other shop rooms under the ownership of the dependent are facing towards another road by name 'Rajiv Gandhi Road'. Thus, the petition schedule shop rooms and other three shop rooms under the ownership of the dependent are facing towards different roads, passing through** **RCRev. Nos.232, 242 & 243 of 2018** **-:20:-** **different sides of the shopping complex.** **23. We have meticulously gone through the commission report and plan attached to the commission report. In the plan, the road by name 'M.A. Road' is not specified; but the road by name 'Rajiv Gandhi Road' is seen specifically marked. The learned counsel for the respondent/tenant submitted that the road by name Azhikode Road is also known as 'M.A. Road'. No material has been available in evidence to prove that the road by name Azhikode Road is known as 'M.A. Road' also. Further, the petition schedule shop rooms are shown and marked in the plan; but the shop rooms under the ownership of the dependent are not shown in the plan.** **24. Going by the report also, we find that the area of the petition schedule shop rooms and the shop rooms under the ownership of the** **RCRev. Nos.232, 242 & 243 of 2018** ## **-:21:-** **dependent has not been reported by the Advocate Commissioner. Therefore, the commission report and plan are not sufficient, to assess the similarity of petition schedule shop rooms with three other shop rooms under the ownership of the dependent.** **25. It has come out in the evidence of RW.1 during the cross-examination that, the three other shop rooms under the ownership of the dependent are locked. But, there is no reliable evidence to arrive at a finding on, whether those shop rooms under the ownership of the dependent are vacant or not. Merely on the reason that the shop rooms are found locked, it cannot be held that those shop rooms are vacant rooms. Thus, we are of the opinion that actually sufficient evidence is not available on record, to arrive at a finding on the question, whether the shop** **RCRev. Nos.232, 242 & 243 of 2018** ## **-:22:-** **rooms under the ownership of the dependent are vacant or suitable for conducting the proposed business? It follows that, unless those shop rooms under the ownership of the dependent are vacant and suitable, it can be held that the daughter of the petitioner/landlord is a dependent for the petition schedule shop rooms.** **26. The learned counsel for the respondent/tenant submitted that the burden to prove that the rooms are vacant and not suitable is on the petitioner/landlord and not on the tenant/respondent. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner/landlord submits that the burden of proof is on the respondent. In the instant case, indisputably, it has come out in pleadings of the respondent and the evidence of the petitioner and respondent that the** **RCRev. Nos.232, 242 & 243 of 2018** ## **-:23:-** **dependent has three other shop rooms of her own in the same shopping complex and those shop rooms are facing towards another road by name 'Rajiv Gandhi Road'. Whether those shop rooms are suitable and vacant is a fact, exclusively within the knowledge of the landlord alone? Therefore, we are of the opinion that the burden of proof will be shifted to the landlord, when the tenant has succeeded in proving that the dependent has three other shop rooms in her possession. It is true that the initial burden of proof is on the tenant himself; but the suitability and the occupancy position are facts, within the knowledge of the landlord alone and that would fall under the special reasons. So long as the landlord is burdened with giving special reasons for not occupying the other three shop rooms in his possession, the burden of proof** **RCRev. Nos.232, 242 & 243 of 2018** ## **-:24:-** **to prove the same will also on him. But, in the instant case, no evidence has been adduced to prove the contention that those rooms are not vacant and not suitable. Certainly, the petitioner could have adduced documentary evidence to prove his claim that those shop rooms are let out to other tenants, or the area of those shop rooms are not sufficient or suitable for conducting the proposed business. That apart, he could have taken a commission to measure the area of the petition schedule shop rooms and the shop rooms under the ownership of the dependent and the lie and width of the roads, by name 'Rajiv Gandhi Road' and 'M.A.Road'. No such evidence is available on record.** **27. In the above view, we are of the opinion that since the views of the courts below are divergent, an opportunity can be** **RCRev. Nos.232, 242 & 243 of 2018** ## **-:25:-** **given to the petitioner/landlord to prove that the shop rooms under the ownership of the dependent are not vacant and suitable, for conducting the proposed business and the road adjacent to the shop rooms under the ownership of the dependent are narrow, when comparing with the road passing adjacent to the petition schedule shop rooms. If he succeeds in proving the same, the claim for eviction is not barred by the first proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act.** **28. As regards** _**bona fide**_ **of the need, the petitioner/landlord was examined as PW.1 and the daughter of the petitioner/landlord for whose need the shop rooms were sought to be evicted, was examined as PW.2 and they testified as to the** _**bona fides**_ **of the need and nothing has been brought out to discredit their evidence.** **RCRev. Nos.232, 242 & 243 of 2018** ## **-:26:-** **29. Going by the judgment under challenge also, we find that the courts below have placed reliance on the evidence of PW.2, as regards the** _**bona fides**_ **of the need, particularly, when she is a qualified woman to conduct the business. Therefore, we find that the need projected is** _**bona fide.**_ **30. As regards the protection under the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act, the courts below have concurrently found that the respondent/tenant is not entitled to get protection under the second proviso to the Section 11(3) of the Act. We do not find any reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below. Thus, the findings under the second proviso to Section 11(3)of the Act that the respondent/tenant is not entitled to get protection under the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act** **RCRev. Nos.232, 242 & 243 of 2018** ## **-:27:-** **would stand confirmed.** **31. Coming to the claim for eviction under Section 11(4)(iii) of the Act, we find that the respondent/tenant himself has admitted that, after the death of his father, the shop rooms owned by his father devolved upon the respondent/tenant and his mother and siblings, and he is a co-owner of the said building. The petitioner/landlord has pointed out that the respondent/tenant has subsequently acquired another building near the municipal bus stand and he has been conducting a readymade garment business by name 'Riva Garments' in that building. The respondent/tenant contended that his wife along with some other relatives are in possession of the said building. Thus, according to the respondent/tenant, he is not in exclusive possession of the aforesaid buildings. But,** **RCRev. Nos.232, 242 & 243 of 2018** ## **-:28:-** **no evidence has been adduced to prove the ownership or possession of the aforesaid two buildings. The Rent Control Court relied on the oral assertion of the respondent/tenant and found that the petitioner/landlord is not entitled to get an order of eviction under Section 11(4)(iii) of the Act. On the other hand, the Rent Control Appellate Authority has not relied on the oral evidence of RW.1 and granted an order of eviction under Section 11(4)(iii) of the Act. We are of the opinion that the actual possession of the aforesaid two buildings could have been proved by adducing documentary evidence. But, no documentary evidence was forthcoming to prove the possession of those two buildings. Certainly the respondent/tenant could have produced documentary evidence, to prove the co-ownership and possession of the aforesaid** **RCRev. Nos.232, 242 & 243 of 2018** ## **-:29:-** **buildings alleged by the petitioner/landlord.** **32. As rightly observed by the Rent Control Court, if the subsequently acquired buildings are under the co-ownership certainly, it will not fall under Section 11(4)(iii) of the Act and the legal position is well settled by this Court in** _**Thalayodi Raghavan'**_ **s case (supra). The landlord can succeed to get an order of eviction under Section 11(4)(iii) of the Act, only if he proves that the tenant has subsequently acquired possession of a building. In the instant case, there is no reliable evidence to prove that the building allegedly acquired subsequently by the respondent/tenant is under the joint possession of the respondent/tenant and some others. Therefore, reliable evidence is required to determine the claim for eviction, under Section 11(4)(iii) of the Act** **RCRev. Nos.232, 242 & 243 of 2018** ## **-:30:-** **also.** **33. In the above analysis, we set aside the findings of the Rent Control Appellate Authority under the first proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act and the findings, whereby granted an order of eviction under Section 11(4)(iii) of the Act. All other findings under Section 11(3) of the Act would stand undisturbed. These revision petitions are allowed in part. The Rent Control Court shall dispose of the case afresh under Section 11(4) (iii) and the first proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after affording an opportunity to adduce further evidence to both parties. It is needless to say, since we have already confirmed** _**bona fides**_ **of the need and denial of protection to the tenant under the second** **RCRev. Nos.232, 242 & 243 of 2018** ## **-:31:-** **proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act, the final order under Section 11(3) of the Act is to be passed after considering evidence to be adduced under the first proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. Remand under Section 11(4) (iii) is an open remand.** **These rent control revision petitions are allowed in part.** **Sd/-** **K.HARILAL** **JUDGE** **Sd/-** Al/DST **ANNIE JOHN JUDGE** //True copy// P.A.To Judge