AVINASH V SARAF Vs. ERNAKULAM KARAYOGAM SOCIETY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Thottekkatt Diwan Memorial Hall popularly known as "TDM Hall" at Darbar Hall Ground Road, Ernakulam has been the venue of many marriages and civic functions for over half a century. There is a row of shop rooms having road frontage in the same building complex abutting the TDM Hall which are the subject matter of these Rent Control Revisions. The building belongs to 'Ernakulam Karayogam' - a society (hereinafter referred to as 'the landlord') which had obviously been engaging in various welfare activities for long. Eviction of the tenants from the shop rooms in question was sought under the provisions of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The need alleged was that the landlord wanted the petition scheduled premises to house a Computer Centre and a Day Care Centre for children as part of its welfare activities. There already exists a marriage hall, matrimonial centre, astrological centre, free legal aid cell etc. in the building in addition to a Working Womens Hostel being run there. The Rent Control Court disallowed eviction which was reversed by the appellate court after upholding the need of the landlord and the same is impugned in these Rent Control Revisions. R.C.R.Nos. 31/2005, 42/2005, 51/2005 & 23/2008 relate to the need of Computer Centre and R.C.R.Nos.52/2005 & 122/2005 relate to the need for Day Care Centre for children. The Rent Control Revisions are being disposed of together since the landlord in all the cases is one and the same and the tenants are occupying different rooms of the same building. We have heard M/s. T. Krishnan Unni and P. Jacob Varghese, Senior Advocates and M/s. Varghese. C. Kuriakose, M.K. Chandramohan Das and Peeyus A. Kottam, Advocates on behalf of the various tenants as well as Mr. K. Ramachandran, Advocate on behalf of the landlord at length on the various issues.

(2.) The bonafide need alleged under Section 11(3) of the Act was subsequently 'not pressed' by the landlord and the claim for eviction was confined to Section 11(7) of the Act which is extracted below:-

(3.) The tenants contended that the minutes of the general body of the society held on 26.6.1994 wherein a resolution was allegedly passed to take steps for evicting the tenants has not been produced and is fatal. It was further contended that the state of mind of a society could be best reflected by a resolution and that a need cannot be established without disclosing the decision of the general body. But it is seen that the decision to evict the tenants has been pursued and deliberated upon in the meetings of the executive committee of the society held subsequently. Moreover Clause 23 of the bye laws of the society empowers the Secretary to act on behalf of the landlord who has instituted the present proceedings for eviction. Therefore we hold that the failure to produce the minutes of the general body of the society held years ago (and which could not be traced out according to the landlord) is inconsequential for pursuing the action.