CHERIAN VARKEY Vs. RAMAN PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioners are respondents 2 and 3 in RCRP No. 13 of 1978 on the file of the District Court, Ernakulam. The first respondent filed RCP No. 43 of 1963 before the Rent Control Court, Perumbavoor, for eviction of the petitioners and the second respondent herein from a building situated in the Kalady Town under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent control) Act, on the ground that he required the building for his own occupation, that the building required reconstruction, and also that the tenant had sub-let the building.

(2.) The building was originally owned by the father of the first respondent, and it was leased to the second respondent and the father of the first petitioner herein in the year 1118 M.E. A lease-deed, Ext. P1 was, subsequently, executed in the year 1121 M.E. The petitioners are conducting a grocery shop in the building. While the tenants were in possession the first respondent-landlord filed O.S. No. 486 of 1961 before the Munsiff's Court, Perumbavoor, for eviction of the building on the ground that the building would fetch more rent and also on the ground that he required the building for his own use. While the suit was pending the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act was extended to the Kalady Town. The suit was, therefore, withdrawn and RCP no. 43 of 1963 was filed, for eviction of the petitioners herein. The petitioners filed objections opposing the claim for eviction on the ground of bonafide need and also contending that they were depending, for their livelihood, on the income derived from the trade carried on in the building, and there was no other suitable building available in the locality.

(3.) The Rent Control Court held, that the landlord failed to establish a case of bonafide need and that the other grounds for eviction alleged were also not substantiated. The petition was dismissed. Against the above decision the first respondent filed an appeal, RCA No. 29 of 1971 before the Appellate Authority. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal as per its judgment dated 15.7.1972. Against that decision the first respondent filed RCRP No. 41 of 1973, before the District Court. The District Court held, that the claim of the landlord for eviction on the ground that he required the building for his own occupation was bonafide. The Court, however, observed, that the appellate authority had not considered the application of the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. The Court, therefore, remanded the case to the appellate authority. Against the order CRP No. 793 of 1976 was filed before this Court. This Court confirmed the order of the District Court regarding the finding on the question of bonafide need and remanded the case to the appellate authority for consideration of the question of the application of the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act.