SARAMMA VARGHESE Vs. GEORGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant, defeated in all the courts below, has come up in revision against the order of eviction passed under S.11(4)(iv) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (shortly stated the Act). The petition was moved by the landlord for eviction on the ground that he requires the building for reconstruction as it is old and dilapidated and does not fetch reasonable rent. The importance of the locality and the prevailing high prices of the land, according to him, has necessitated the demolition and reconstruction of the building on modern lines. Necessary arrangements for the construction of the building have been made by him; the plan etc., have been submitted to the Corporation and the sanction has been obtained. He has' also the ability to reconstruct. The building in question is situate on the market road at Ernakulam, a little to the north of the junction, where the market road and the Cannonshed roads join. The tenant is running a hotel (the City Hotel) in the building. The petition was opposed by the tenant on the ground that the building does not require reconstruction; it is in a sound and stable condition. The petitioner has not got the financial strength to carry out the reconstruction. Repelling these contentions, the learned Rent Controller allowed the petition. The order of the Rent Controller has been confirmed in appeal by the appellate authority and in revision by the learned District Judge.

(2.) The main point urged before me is that the landlord petitioner has not got the ability to reconstruct. According to the plan and the estimate, the reconstruction would cost more than one lakh of rupees; but the petitioner possesses only Rs. 5000/- in cash. The tenant would, therefore, contend that the claim is wanting in bona fides and that it is only a ruse to evict him. The petitioner's answer to this contention is that he need not be in possession of the entire one lakh of rupees now; it is enough if he satisfies the court that he has got the means ready at hand for raising the necessary funds. His father inlaw and paternal grandfather are both in affluent circumstances. The father inlaw owns 2000 acres of tea and rubber estates and can command any amount. This part of the petitioner's case has not been challenged by the counter petitioner. He would in a rather general way swear that the petitioner has not got the ability to rebuild. He has no case that the father inlaw and the grandfather are not rich or that they are miserly and will not help the petitioner in the matter. "Ability" means "sufficient power, capacity (to do); cleverness or talent." So, even if the petitioner is not possessed at present of the entire amount required for the construction, it is enough if he .satisfies the court that he has got the power, capacity and the talent to raise funds and carry on the construction. If it turns out that the claim for reconstruction is not honest and that it is put forward as a mere pretext to evict the tenant, the section provides for penal measures being taken against the landlord. So, no landlord with self respect will dare to come forward with a false claim and run the risk of the penalty of a fine being imposed on him.

(3.) The tenant has also a case that the" building does not require reconstruction. It is stable and sound. But the question whether the building requires reconstruction is for the landlord to decide and in doing so, various factors, of course, have to be taken into consideration. As observed by Mathew, J., in Ahammad Kanna v. Muhammed Haneef ( 1967 KLT 841 ) following AIR 1963 SC 499 :-