S J EBENEZER Vs. VELAYUDHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave is preferred against the judgment of the Kerala High Court dated 3-10-1991 in O. P. No. 1486/87-B. The first respondent herein (landlord) filed R.C.P. No. 170/79 under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter called the 'Act') seeking eviction of the appellant herein from the premises in question on the grounds that the appellant wilfully defaulted in payment of rents and the premises was required bona fide for use by the said respondent-landlord. It was alleged in the petition that another premises under the occupation of the landlord, namely, T.C. 13/1412, was under immediate threat of acquisition for implementing the Palayam Town Planning Scheme.

(2.) The appellant-tenant resisted the petition for eviction alleging, inter alia, that the application was mala fide one and there was no default in payment of rents. It was also stated by the appellant-tenant that the landlord (first respondent herein), on an earlier occasion, had moved a similar application against his elder brother knowing fully well that the appellant was the tenant. After a full trial, accepting the case of the appellant's brother, the application for eviction was dismissed and the appeal and further revision filed by the landlord were dismissed. Thereafter, the present application for eviction was filed. It was also stated by the tenant that the pleadings in the petition were vague and the premises already in the possession of the landlord was sufficient and that there was no need to seek eviction of the appellant from the suit premises. It was further stated in the counter statement that there are other buildings owned by the landlord for occupation. The appellant seriously disputed the main reason given for own occupation stating that the alleged acquisition proceedings had not taken off and there was no threat at all. Even otherwise if the acquisition is for improvement of Palayam Town Planning Scheme, the owners will not be dispossessed until alternative accommodation was provided to the owner to be displaced.

(3.) On the above pleadings, the parties proceeded with the trial by leading oral and documentary evidence. The learned Rent Controller by his Order dated 13-10-1980 found that the ground of wilful default in payment of rents was not established and that there was no bona fide need of the building in question for the occupation of the landlord as the landlord has not faced a situation requiring immediate eviction from the building in his occupation.