LAWRENCE Vs. RAMACHANDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the tenant against whom the respondent landlord filed R.C.P. 14/1999 seeking eviction under S.11 (3) and 11 (4) (v) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The Rent Control Court found that the landlord failed to prove the ground under S.11 (3) of the Act, but he was entitled to succeed under S.11(4) (v) of the Act. The tenant filed R.C.A. 42/1999, but the same was dismissed by the Appellate Authority as per Judgment dated 18th August 2001. The said Judgment of the Appellate Authority in R.C.A. 42/1999 is under challenge in this Revision Petition.

(2.) We have heard learned Counsel for the revision petitioner and we have also perused the Orders of the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority. We do not find any reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority on the landlord's claim under S.11 (4) (v) of the Act. We are of the view that, having regard to the evidence adduced in the case, Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority were justified in coming to the conclusion that the revision petitioner ceased to occupy the building continuously for six months without reasonable cause. Even otherwise, sitting in revisional jurisdiction, are not expected to re - appreciate the evidence adduced in the case and to reverse the finding of the courts below.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner contends that in the petition filed before the Rent Control Court, the landlord had not specifically pleaded; that the tenant ceased to occupy the building "without reasonable cause". According to the learned Counsel, even though the landlord pleaded that the tenant ceased to occupy the building continuously for six months, it was not specifically stated that such non occupation of the building was withoutl reasonable cause and therefore, the Rent Control Court was not justified in ordering eviction under S.11 (4) (v) of the Act. There is no merit in this contention. According to S.11 (4) (v) of the Act, a landlord may apply to the Rent Control Court for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building, if the tenant ceases to occupy the building continuously for six months without reasonable cause. Admittedly, the petition before the Rent Control Court was filed not only under S.11 (3) but a]so under S.11 (4) (v) of the Act and it was pleaded that the tenant ceased to occupy the building continuously for six months, thus, attracting the application of S.11 (4) (v) of the Act. Evidence was adduced by the landlord in support of his claim under S.11 (4) (v) of the Act and it was proved that the tenant ceased to occupy the building without reasonable cause. In Para.14 of the order passed by the Rent Control Court it was held both the parties understood what was the case pleaded by the landlord in the petition and what was the evidence to be adduced in the petition by respective parties. The Rent Control Court found that it could not be held that the pleading regarding the ground under S.11 (4) (v) of the Act was insufficient. In such circumstances we held that the mere omission to state in the petition that the non occupation of the building was without reasonable cause, cannot disentitle him to get an order of eviction under S.11 (4) (v) of the Act. In our view, the absence of the words "without reasonable cause in a petition filed by the landlord under S.11 (4) (v) of the Act will not disentitle him for an order of eviction if there is sufficient evidence to show thai the tenant ceased to occupy the building continuously for six months without reasonable cause. As pointed out by a Division Bench of this court in Shaji Varghese v.Cherian 1993 (1) KLT 133 pleadings in Rent Control Petitions are not to be analysed meticulously or in such a way as to lead to failure of justice. If the Court feels that no prejudice: has been caused to the counter petitioner on account of the pleadings of the petitioner, it is not proper to deny relief on the ground that there is no pleading. Pleadings should be liberally construed and a meticulous analysis of the pleadings should not be adopted if it will lead to failure of justice. As held by the Supreme Court in Bhagwati v. Chandramaul AIR 1966 SC 735 if a plea is not specifically made and yet it is covered by an issue by implication and the parties Knew that the said plea was involved in the trial then the very fact that the plea was not expressly taken in the wowld not necessarily disentitle a party from relying upon it if it is satisfactorily proved by evidence. Even if the pleadings are lacking or vague if both the parties understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to the requirement of law and placed necessary materials before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. In this case, we agree with the finding of the Rent Control Court that both the parties understood What was the case pleaded by the iandlord in the petition and what was the evidence to be by the respective parties and, therefore, the failure of landlord to specifically plead in the petition that the non occupation of the building was without reasonable cause did not prejudice the tenant.