K P GURUDAS Vs. MANDAMMATT CHETTIPURAYIL SARADA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE landlord is in revision. He challenges the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority declining eviction on the ground under sub section (3) of Section 11 confirming the order passed against him by the Rent Control Court. THE landlord had invoked the ground of arrears of rent also. THE eviction order was passed under that ground, but that order is always liable to be vacated by the tenant making requisite deposits and invoking Section 11 (2)(c).

(2.) IN this revision we have to be concerned only with the correctness of the judgment of the Appellate Authority finally declining eviction on the ground under Sub Section (3) of Section 11. The need projected in the rent control petition is that the building (two rooms in the ground floor of a two storied building) is required for the landlord's son Radhakrishnan for the purpose of conducting " bio technology unit". The bona fides of the need was disputed by the tenants. The tenants also contended that they are entitled for the protection of the second proviso to sub section (3) of section 11 mainly on three reasons. (i). The son for whom the building is required did not adduce oral evidence. (ii). During the pendency of the proceedings a portion of the first floor of the building fell vacant and if the need was bona fide, the landlord could have accompanied his son in that building. (iii). The landlord's plea regarding the purpose for which the building was required is vague as the details were not furnished.

(3.) WE have given our anxious consideration to the submission of Mr.Ramkumar. WE have gone through the judgment of the Appellate Authority as well as the order of the Rent Control Court. WE remind ourselves of the contours of our jurisdiction under Section 20 which is revisional in nature. WE are in agreement with the statutory authorities who say that the pleading of the landlord as regards the activity proposed to be conducted by the landlord's son after getting eviction is not sufficient and has caused some prejudice to the tenants. At least minimum details of the proposed bio technology unit should have been pleaded, so that the tenants could meet them in their pleadings. The landlord, who was examined as PW1, had nothing to do with bio technology. The only person, who could have given authentic evidence regarding the proposed activity(which Mr.Ramkumar now tells us is the conduct of a bio technology laboratory) was Radhakrishnan, the landlord's son. WE feel, as the statutory authorities felt, that non examination of Radhakrishnan in the facts and circumstances which obtain in the rent control petition will be fatal to the rent control petition. WE are not inclined to remand the matter for enabling the landlord to examine Radhakrishnan, as a remand without amendment of pleadings may be futile exercise. WE feel that the petitioner/landlord can be permitted to institute a fresh rent control petition invoking the same ground and any other grounds which may be presently available to the landlord. This in our opinion will not cause prejudice to either of the parties.