VARGHESE MATHEWS Vs. FAKIR RAWTHER ABDUL RAZACK RAWTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These revisions are against orders of the Addl. District Judge, Mavelikkara in 6 revision petitions under S.20 of the Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) disposed of by a common order covering these and some other cases. The revision petitioner in all these cases is the same. He is the landlord of a building. Respondents in these cases are tenants occupying various rooms of the building on rent. The revision petitioner, as landlord, sought surrender of those rooms. The respondents did not surrender. The petitioner moved petitions before the Rent Control Court seeking eviction of the tenants. In all these petitions he alleged as grounds for eviction, (1) arrears of rent (2) bona fide need of the petitioner for occupation of the building and (3) requirement of the building for the purpose of reconstruction. The Court is no longer concerned with the first of these pleas. The plea with regard to bona fide need was that, the petitioner, after eviction of the tenants, proposed to reconstruct the building so that he could run a restaurant therein. The plea of requirement for reconstruction was sought to fee justified by reference to various facts such as the age of the building, the fact that it was out of date in the Pandalam town in which it was situate and there was need for constructing a modern building suitable to such an important locality.

(2.) The Rent Control Court ordered eviction accepting the ground of bona fide need of the building for occupation of the petitioner, a ground fatting under S.11(3) of the Act and also on the ground of requirement of the building for reconstruction, falling within S.11(4)(iv) of the Act. The tenants filed appeals before the appellate authority. The appellate authority accepted their case that bona fide need of the petitioner had not been shown. The court particularly took notice of the fact that the petitioner was advanced in age, evidently suggesting that if so his plea that he wanted the building for reconstruction so as to run a restaurant would not be honest. The appellate court further found that the petitioner did not mention this as a ground in the petition and, if this idea was in this petitioner's mind at the tune the petition was drafted it would have been so mentioned, it is apparent that the appellate court did not accept the case of bona fide need of the building for the petitioner's occupation. It agreed with the Rent Control Court that the building needed reconstruction and on that ground the petitioner was entitled to seek eviction. Revisions were taken to the District Court. The tenants filed revision petitions before the District Court as R. C. R. P. No. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of 1972 challenging the finding that the building required reconstruction. The landlord filed revision petitions as R. C. R. P. No. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 of 1972 challenging mainly the directions relating to the manner of construction of new structure and also challenging the finding that eviction under S.11(3) of the Act was not to be granted. The revisional court agreed with the view of the appellate court and confirmed its finding that the building was not bona fide needed for the occupation of the petitioner, but the condition of the building was such as to justify the proposal for reconstruction. It upheld the order for eviction under S.11(4)(iv) of the Act. These orders of the revisional court are challenged by the petitioner, the landlord.

(3.) Though the prayer for eviction stands allowed the landlord has nevertheless come up in revision because, according to him, he is entitled to an order for eviction on the ground that the landlord needs the building for his bona fide occupation and that ought to have been found and further that even. If eviction was to be ordered under S.11(4)(iv) of the Act the appellate court was not competent to impose the condition with regard to the reconstruction of the building and allotment out of the rooms so constructed, accommodation for the six tenants. Memoranda of cross objections are filed by the respondents in these cases contending that the landlord had not made out any of the grounds urged in the petition and that the finding of the Rent Control Court, appellate authority and the revisional court that the building was in a condition requiring reconstruction was unwarranted.