RAMANKUTTY NAIR K Vs. RADHIKA G NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenants-Respondents in R.C.P. 105/86 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Thiruvananthapuram are before us with a revision under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). The Respondent herein instituted the above petition before the Rent Control Court seeking eviction under Section 11(2)(b) and 11(4) (iv of the Act with an allegation that the petition schedule building was let out by the mother of the Respondent to late G. Krishna Pilla, the predecessor of the revision Petitioners on the strength of Ext. B-1 Rent Deed dt.25-5-74 for a monthly rent of 12 and that the rent of the petition schedule building was in arrears since 1983 and that despite the demand to clear off the arrears of rent, the revision Petitioners did not heed and that the petition schedule building is in such a condition that it needs re-construction and that the Respondent had got necessary plan and licence for re-construction and after re-construction, the Respondent bona fide needed for their residence.

(2.) The revision Petitioners objected the petition with a contention that long before 1-4-1940 the predecessor of the revision Petitioners were in occupation of a small room and varanda, which were constructed by spending 300 and that on death of the original tenant the leasehold devolved upon the revision Petitioners and they had made additions to the leasehold and that they have no other land or homestead of thereon and they are entitled to "kudikidappu" right over the petition schedule building and that the revision Petitioners are not liable to be evicted under the Act and that the petition schedule building requires no reconstruction and there is no bona fides in contending that the petition schedule building requires re-construction. The execution of Ext. B-1 was denied and contended that it is a concocted document.

(3.) The Rent Controller, in pursuance of the claim of "kudikidappu", referred the matter to the Land Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram as mandated by Section 125(3) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The Land Tribunal took up the matter as R.C.24/90. After due enquiry, the Land Tribunal, relying upon a report filed by the Revenue Inspector deputed under Section 105 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act that the rent and cost of the petition schedule building at the time of its construction are below five rupees and seven hundred and fifty rupees respectively, arrived at a finding that the revision Petitioners are entitled to "kudikidappu" right over the petition schedule building as they would come within the definition of "kudikidappukaran" defined under Section 2(25) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The Rent Controller accepted the finding of the Land Tribunal and dismissed the petition for eviction by order dated 2-12-1994. Aggrieved by the above order, after a long delay of 895 days the Respondent took up the matter in appeal as R.C.A.20/97. The Appellate Authority condoned the delay in filing appeal and on a reappraisal of the evidence arrived at a finding that Ext. B-1 rent deed was executed by the predecessor of the revision Petitioners whereby the agreed rate of rent was 12. In the light of Ext. B-1, the appellate authority concluded that, that rent of the building on the date of construction would be 6 and on a further finding that the revision Petitioners failed to establish that the cost of construction of the building was below 750, the appellate authority turned down the "kudikidappu" claim advanced by the revision Petitioners. Consequently, the case was remanded back to the Rent Controller to decide as to whether the Respondents are entitled to an order of eviction under Section 11(2)(b) and 11 (4)(iv) of the Act. Assailing the legality, correctness, regularity and propriety of the above judgment this revision petition was preferred.