ARJUNAN Vs. ERANU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant in R.C.P. No. 91 of 1987, Rent Control Court, Kannur is the petitioner in this revision. The sole respondent is the landlord. The petition schedule building is one of the three units of a bigger building. It was demised to the tenant on 10-1-1976 on a monthly rent of Rs. 35/-. The rent due fell in arrears. It was further alleged that the tenant was negligent in the use of the building and the building suffered substantial damage and its value was affected materially and permanently. Finally, the landlord contended that the available accommodation was insufficient for the comfortable residence of himself and his family and to meet the growing requirements, additional accommodation is necessary. He pressed into service S.11 (8) of Act 2 of 1965. So, the petition for eviction was laid under S.11(2), 11 (4)(iv) and 11(8) of Act 2 of 1965. The tenant contested the proceedings. It was contended that the entire arrears have been deposited in court. It was further contended that the building is not in a ruinous condition. Finally, the tenant stated that there is no need of additional accommodation for the landlord.

(2.) The Rent Controller held that the landlord is not entitled to an order of eviction, on any of the grounds. In the appeal, before the Appellate Authority, the landlord assailed the decision of the Rent Controller under S.11(4)(iv) and S.11(8) of the Act. The Appellate Authority held that the Rent Controller rightly dismissed the application and denied eviction, since none of the ingredients under S.11(4)(iv) of the Act was proved. But, holding that the landlord has proved the necessary ingredients to entitle him to an order of eviction under S.11(8) of the Act, the Appellate Authority set aside the order of the Rent Controller under S.11(8) of the Act and directed the tenant to surrender vacant possession of the scheduled premises to the landlord within three months. The tenant has come up in revision.

(3.) We heard counsel for the revision-petitioner/tenant, M/s. Ramesh Chander and M. Vijaya Kumar, as also counsel for the respondent/landlord Mr. A. P. Chandrasekharan. The sole controversy before us centered round the applicability of S.11 (8) read with S.11(10) of the Act, which are as follows: