JOSEPH Vs. RENT CONTROLLER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The interrleationship between S.11(4)(iv) and 11(8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') arises for consideration in this case. This writ petition is at the instance of a tenant in a Rent Control filed by the 4th respondent landlord under S.11(2), 11(4)(iv) and 11(8) of the Act. The Rent Control Court allowed the petition on all the three grounds as per Ext. P2 order, which was confirmed in Ext. P3 judgment by the Rent Control Appellate Authority and that led the petitioner to this court in the writ petition.

(2.) The tenant entered into a written agreement with the landlord on 28.7.1978 for the occupation of the petition schedule building for a period of six months agreeing to pay a monthly rent of Rs. 60. Thereafter in 1982 when the landlord required the petitioner to surrender vacant possession, the tenant took up a contention that after the rental arrangement originally agreed to for six months he had made certain investment in the building for the purpose of his tyre resoling business and that those arrangements were made on the basis of an oral agreement between the parties that the tenant could continue for a period of ten years and an amount of Rs. 1000/- had already been paid on that basis to the landlord. Refuting the position the landlord approached the Munsiff's Court, Wadakkancherry in O. S. No. 88 of 1982 during the pendency of which the provisions of the Act were extended to Choondal Panchayat where the building is situated. Hence proceedings under the Act were initiated by the landlord for eviction on the grounds of S.11(2) - arrears or rent - , S.11(4)(iv) - bona fide need for reconstruction - and S.11(8) - bona fide need for additional accommodation. It is interesting to note that the landlord had taken up a Commission for substantiating the need for reconstruction. Ext. C3 is the report dated 21.3.1986 of the Assistant Engineer, Public Works Department (Buildings and Roads) Section, Kunnamkulam which reads as follows:

(3.) We are told at the Bar that inspite of such a precarious condition the petition schedule building is still occupied by the tenant though only certain 'parts' of the room are there now. It is to be noted that the petition schedule room forms part of a line building having two rooms and a hall and the eastern most room is the one occupied by the tenant. The hall is occupied by the landlord and she is conducting a rice mill business there. It is for expansion of the said business she needed the premises and hence ground under S.11(8).