SUNNY THOMAS Vs. K.V. GEORGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UNDER challenge in this revision under Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965 is the order passed by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority concurrently on the ground of arrears of rent and requirement of reconstruction. As for the eviction order passed on the ground of arrears of rent, having gone through the findings entered by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority, we are of the view that those findings have been entered on the basis of legal evidence. Moreover, it is well known that eviction orders passed under Section 11(2)(b) are virtually provisional, and are always liable to be vacated by making requisite deposit under Section 11(2)(c). The above order is confirmed. However, the revision petitioner is given one month's time to get the order of eviction vacated by filing petition under Section 11(2)(c).

(2.) THE other ground on which eviction order passed is on the ground of reconstruction. Keeping in mind the well known contours of our jurisdiction under Section 20 we have scanned the order of the Rent Control Court and the judgment of the Appellate Authority. We find that on the basis of the legal evidence available in the case, including the report of a commissioner prepared on the basis of local inspection that the building is in such a condition as warranting reconstruction, that the proposal of reconstruction will be profitable from the point of view of the landlord, that the landlord has already acquired an approved plan and building permit from the local authority regarding the reconstruction and that the landlord has necessary wherewithal to carry out the reconstruction and also that the proposal of reconstruction is not a pretext for eviction. Even though several grounds have been raised in the revision memorandum assailing the findings of the authorities below and Sri. Alex M. Scaria, learned Counsel for the revision petitioner addressed us strenuously on the basis of those grounds we are not persuaded to hold that the findings are illegal, irregular or improper to the extent of justifying interference under Section 20. One of the arguments which Mr. Alex M. Scaria addressed before us was that the authorities below went wrong in not directing that the entire building after reconstruction will be allotted to the revision petitioner subject to his liability to pay fair rent in terms of the third proviso to Clause (iv) of Sub -section (4) of Section 11. According to the learned Counsel, since the revision petitioner is the only tenant in the existing building, he is entitled to be re -inducted into the new building which is going to come up in the place of the existing building. We cannot accept the above argument. One of the reasons on the basis of which the eviction order has been passed under Section 11(4)(iv) is that the proposal to reconstruct the building by demolishing the existing building and putting up a brand new building in its place will be much more profitable from the landlord's point of view. The statute as well as the binding judicial precedents governing the point provide that the authorities under the statute shall ensure that in the building after reconstruction the evicted tenant gets more or less the same area as he used to enjoy in the building which is demolished pursuant to the order of the court. We find that the Rent Control Court has clearly stated that the revision petitioner will have the first option "to get room in the newly constructed building at the rent prevailing after the reconstruction." This direction is seen slightly modified bay the Appellate Authority which says that the tenant should be re -inducted into one room in the newly constructed building. We will only clarify that the tenant will have the first option to be re -inducted into a portion of the reconstructed building having more or less the same area as he was enjoying in the building where from he is evicted.