K J JOSEPHM Vs. PEETTAYIL KAPPALLI REA MOL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UNDER challenge in this revision filed by the tenant is the order of eviction concurrently passed by the Rent Control Court and the Rent Control Appellate Authority on the grounds under sub Section 11(4)(ii) [use of the building in such a manner as to reduce the value and utility of the building materially and permanently] and the ground under Section 11(4)(3) [acquisition of other buildings by the tenant in the same city, town or village reasonably sufficient for his requirement]. The landlord has invoked ground under Section 11(3) also. The tenant by filing objections denied the existence of any of the eviction grounds. As regards the ground under Section 11(3), the tenant claimed the protection under the second proviso to sub Section 3 of Section 11. The Rent Control Court on evaluating the evidence adduced by the parties which consisted of Exts.A1 to A5, B1 to B3, Ext.C1 Commission Report and oral evidence of Pws.1 and 2 and RW1 came to the conclusion that the eviction grounds under Section 11(4)(ii) and under Section 11(4)(iii) stood established in the case. But as regards the ground of bona fide need for own occupation, it was found that the landlady was unsuccessful in proving that there was a bona fide need for her. In view of that finding, the Rent Control Court did not go into the question whether the tenant is entitled for the protection of the second proviso to sub Section 3 of Section 11. Accordingly, the Rent Control Court ordered eviction on the grounds under Section 11(4) (ii) and 11(4)(iii) only. The tenant preferred appeal before the Appellate Authority. Significantly, the landlord did not challenge the finding of the Rent Control Court in the context of the need under Section 11(3). The Appellate Authority under the impugned judgment after making a re- appraisal of the evidence dismissed the appeal confirming the findings of the Rent Control Court.

(2.) IN this revision under Section 20, various grounds are raised assailing the eviction orders passed under Sections 11 (4)(ii) and 11(4)(iii). The revision petitioner also assails the refusal by the Rent Control Appellate Authority to go into the question whether the tenant is entitled to the benefit of the second proviso to sub Section 3 of Section 11.

(3.) WE will notice immediately that the above submission is apparently attractive. But in our view as the landlord did not challenge the order of eviction which was declined under Section 11(3), the above question is only academic. In the facts and circumstances obtaining in this case, no prejudice has been caused to the tenant by the failure of the learned Appellate Authority to consider the question of revision petitioner's eligibility for protection of the second proviso to sub Section 3 of Section 11.