C THANKA Vs. NARAYANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Tenants in Rent Control proceedings are the petitioners, and the common respondent, the landlord. The landlord has three buildings in Koorkancherry Panchayat, on the outskirts of Trichur Town, occupied by eleven different tenants. The Rent Control Court allowed her petitions for evicting them on the ground of bona fide requirement to reconstruct, and the decision was upheld by the appellate authority and by the District Court Eight of the tenants have now come up in revision under S.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) In proceedings under sub-s.4(iv) of S.11 of Act 2 of 1965, the first thing to be looked into by a court is the condition of the building (or buildings). If the condition is such that it needs reconstruction, the next question will be about the bona fide nature of the landlord's requirement. The court has also to satisfy itself that the plan and the licence, if required, are there, that the landlord has the ability to rebuild and that reconstruction is not put forward as a pretext. Severe restrictions are thus imposed on the right of a landlord to reconstruct, in the interests of the tenants; and the three provisos add to their rigour. Still the findings regarding the condition of the building, the bona fide nature of the landlord's requirement and the other things specified in the statute are findings of fact. The Rent Control Court and the appellate authority are primarily responsible for such findings, the revisional power of the District Court under S.20 being essentially supervisory, to be exercised in those rare cases where the appellate order is illegal, irregular or improper and leads to miscarriage of justice. The scope for interference by this Court under S.115 CPC. is even more limited.

(3.) The following contentions are raised on behalf of the tenants: