MARIYAM BEEVI Vs. UMMUKULSU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Under challenge in this RCR filed under Section 20 by the tenants is the order of eviction passed against the revision petitioners on the ground of re-construction under Section 11(4)(iv). In fact, the respondents/landlords have invoked other grounds for eviction also. But it is conceded at the Bar that the only ground which survives for consideration in this RCR is the ground of re- construction under Section 11(4)(iv).

(2.) We have heard submissions of Sri.S.Sanal Kumar, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and those of Sri.K.V.Sadananda Prabhu, the learned counsel for the respondents. Sri.Sanal Kumar submitted that land acquisition proceedings are under way for road widening and that the petition schedule building also falls within the alignment of the proposed road. Sri.Sadananda Prabhu would immediately retort that the petition schedule premises are excluded from the proposed acquisition. Sri.Sanal Kumar would then submit that Exts.A8 and A9 building permits on the basis of which the building is proposed to be reconstructed have expired. According to him, it is very unlikely that the local authority will renew these permits. So he submitted that there is every likelihood of the respondents being unable to carry out the re- construction and retain the existing building in its present condition. Sri.Sadananda Prabhu submitted that the respondents are very much optimistic of getting the building permit renewed and carrying out the reconstruction. He pointed out that before the learned Appellate Authority it was conceded by the revision petitioners that the building requires reconstruction; that the landlord has ability to carry out reconstruction and also that the landlord has the requisite plan. Sri.Prabhu further pointed out that the revision petitioners also submitted before the Appellate Authority that they will vacate the building within three months.

(3.) Having considered the rival submissions and having scanned the judgment of the Appellate Authority, we are of the view that there is absolutely no warrant for invoking the revisional jurisdiction for interfering with the judgment of the Appellate Authority. According to us, the apprehensions voiced by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners can be taken care of by insisting upon the respondents producing renewed building permits before the execution court before actual delivery is ordered. Hence, the result of the RCR is as follows:- The RCR will stand dismissed. The judgment of the Appellate Authority is confirmed. The execution court is directed not to order delivery before the respondents produces the renewed building permit, if any, in renewal of Exts.A8 and A9.