ARUNACHALAM PILLAI Vs. DISTRICT COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was the landlord of a building bearing door No. 35/1033 in Thiruvananthapuram city. He applied for eviction of respondents 3 to 9 therefrom under S.11(2)(b) and 11(4)(iv) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, by instituting proceedings in B.R.C.O.P. No. 302/75 before the Rent Control Court, Thiruvananthapuram. That court allowed eviction only on the ground of arrears of rent Petitioner took up the matter in appeal The appellate court allowed recovery under S.11(4)(iv) of the Act. It also fixed the time of six months for the landlord to complete the reconstruction. Tenants took up the matter in revision. The Revisional Court reversed the order passed by the appellate authority. Petitioner then took up the matter before this court in C.R.P. No. 1323/78 under S.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This court allowed that revision petition by order dated 4-6-80 and granted time to the tenants till 1-11-80 to vacate the premises. In execution of that order petitioner obtained delivery of the building through court on 16-2-1981. Thereafter he demolished the building. He did not reconstruct. Respondents 3 to 9 filed a petition on 12-10-81 praying for putting them back into possession of the building. The Rent Control Court dismissed the application by order dated 23-3-1982. Respondents 3 to 9 then preferred an appeal against the said decision under S.18 of the Act. The appellate authority took the view that the Rent Control Court has got the power to fix a time limit for completion of the reconstruction even though this court while granting the prayer under S.11(4)(iv) of the Act landlord did not fix any time limit. Accordingly the appellate authority directed the petitioner to complete the reconstruction of the building within one year. Aggrieved by that order he preferred revision before the District Court under S.20 of the Act. The District Court dismissed the revision. Hence this original petition under Art.227 of the Constitution.

(2.) Under S.11(4)(iv) of the Act a landlord is entitled to recover the building from the tenants if he requires bona fide to reconstruct the same on his satisfying the court that he has the plan and licence and the ability to rebuild. This provision is not to be read in isolation ignoring the provisos. The first proviso contemplates that the court could fix a time within which the reconstruction of the building should be completed. It further contemplates that the Rent Control Court may extend such time. It also contemplates a petition before the Rent Control Court complaining that the landlord had wilfully neglected to reconstruct the building within the time fixed or extended. On such a complaint the court is empowered to impose a fine of Rs.500/-. The second proviso confers powers on the Rent Control Court to issue directions regarding reconstruction of the building. The landlord is bound to comply with such directions. In case the landlord fails to comply the Rent Control Court is empowered to give effect to the order in any manner it deems fit. One of the modes by which it could enforce its order is to put the tenant back in possession in appropriate cases. This may not be possible in a case where the building has already been demolished and the new construction has either been not begun or it has not been completed. In such a case and in other appropriate cases the Rent Control Court can direct damages to be paid to the tenant. Such damages is to be equal to the excess rent the tenant may have to pay in consequence of the eviction. The third proviso deals with the option to the tenant to have the reconstructed building allotted to him. He has the liability to pay fair rent on such allotment It is settled law that the Rent Control Court does not become functus officio the moment an order of eviction under S.11(4)(iv) of the Act is passed. Even after the passing of such order it continues to have jurisdiction to pass orders giving effect to the provisions contained in the various provisos to that Section. The second proviso authorises the court to issue directions at any time regarding the re-construction of the building. This direction regarding reconstruction of the building can be in relation to the time within which the landlord has to reconstruct. The fact that the order allowing recovery of the building on the ground of reconstruction did not fix any time limit for reconstruction is not a bar for the court to issue a direction in that regard as provided by the second proviso.

(3.) In the instant case petitioner got possession of the building in pursuance to the order passed by this court in C.R.P.No. 1323/78 on 16-2-81. Immediately thereafter he demolished the building. He has not cared to reconstruct the same. Thereby he has succeeded in denying the tenants' right to exercise the first option to have the reconstructed building allotted to him till now. The petitioner's attempt is to defeat the claims of the tenants. In fact he tries to defeat the provision of the Act itself. Since this court while ordering recovery of the building under S.11(4)(iv) of the Act did not prescribe a time limit for him to reconstruct, he took the stand that no authority can fix any time limit for reconstructing the same. This attitude of the petitioner is not to be supported, especially in view of the provision contained in the second proviso to S.11(4)(iv) of the Act. In cases where the eviction is ordered under S.11(4)(iv) without fixing any time limit for reconstruction of the building, the Rent Control Court can at any time issue direction regarding the reconstruction of the building. In other words the Rent Control Court can fix a time limit for completing the reconstruction. The courts below have rightly fixed one year's time for reconstructing the building. I do not find any ground to interfere with the same.