MOHANAN Vs. USMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant challenges in this revision under Section 20 the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court under Section 11(4)(iii). In fact the respondent/landlord invoked the ground of arrears of rent under Section 11(2)(b) and the ground of bona fide need for own occupation under Section 11(3) also for evicting the tenant. Eviction on the ground of arrears of rent was declined by the Rent Control Court and the said order has become final. The Rent Control Court ordered eviction under Section 11(3). But, during the pendency of the appeal preferred by the tenant, the person, for whom possession of the building was sought under Section 11(3), passed away. It was noticed by the Appellate Authority that, the need under Section 11(3) was not the need for personal occupation of the person who passed away alone, but occupation by the family members of him also. Hence permitting the landlord to amend the pleadings, the issue of ordering eviction under Section 11(3) was relegated to the Rent Control Court.

(2.) It was on the basis of a building, which is referred to in the judgment of the Appellate Authority as 'Janaki's building', that the Rent Control Court passed order of eviction under Section 11(4)(iii). The pleading of the landlord in the R.C.P. was that the tenant has acquired possession of another building and is actually doing his business of conducting taxi house (hiring of furniture, etc.) from that building. The revision petitioner's defence was one of total denial. It became evident through Ext.A3 and the tenant's own oral evidence that he had come into possession of the building referred to as 'Janaki's building'. The tenant's case was that the above building is a residential building in which he is presently residing. Significantly, the tenant did not specifically contend even alternatively that the above building is not reasonably sufficient for his requirements. The statutory authorities have taken the view that when it becomes evident that the tenant is in possession of another building, it is the tenant's burden to adduce evidence and show that the said building is not reasonably sufficient for his requirements within the same city, town or village. It is in that view of the matter that the Appellate Authority confirmed the order of eviction passed under Section 11(4)(iii).

(3.) In this revision under Section 20, various grounds have been raised assailing the judgment of the Appellate Authority to the extent it relates to Section 11(4)(iii). Mr. R. Surendran, learned Counsel for the revision petitioner, addressed arguments before us on the basis of all the grounds. Inter alia, Mr. R. Surendran submitted that the building, which the tenant has admitted to be in his possession, is a residential building only. A ration card, which was sought to be adduced as an item of evidence before the Appellate Authority, was not allowed to be brought on record. At any rate, according to the learned Counsel, a residential building will not be suitable for conduct of business. As regards Ext.A3, Mr. R. Surendran submitted that Ext.A3 was not put to his client, while he was examined as RW1, during cross examination. Hence, reliance placed on Ext. A3 to hold that the tenant has acquired possession of another building reasonably sufficient for his requirement is not justified. The learned Counsel submitted that the petition schedule building is a double storied building and it is too much to assume that there will be enough facility in Ext.A3 building for accommodating the entire business which is being carried on in the petition schedule building. Mr. R. Surendran further submitted that the rent control petition lacks in proper pleadings regarding Section 11(4)(iii) as there is no plea that the building acquired by the tenant is reasonably sufficient for the tenant's requirement. The learned Counsel would argue that Section 11(4)(iii) of Act 2 of 1965 is unconstitutional and is liable to be struck down as it is likely that the above eviction ground be invoked by the landlords of buildings simultaneously possessed by a tenant resulting in the situation of the tenant becoming liable to be evicted from both the buildings. Mr. R. Surendran further requested that as the matter is already before the Rent Control Court in the context of Section 11(3), let the issue of Section 11(4)(iii) also be reconsidered by the Rent Control Court.