GEORGE Vs. THRESSIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a case, where a landlord indulges in dilatory tactics to defeat a tenant's valid right to get back accommodation as provided in an order of eviction for the purpose of reconstruction of the building under S.11(4)(iv) of Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for short).

(2.) To appreciate the relief sought for by the tenant in the above C.M.P., it is necessary to briefly narrate the history of the case: The revision petitioner filed R.C.P. No.85 of 1970 in the Rent Control Court, Ernakulam. The petition was dismissed by the Rent Control Court on 16-3-1973. On appeal, the Appellate Authority allowed the appeal by order dated 5-11-74 and ordered eviction for reconstruction of the building under S.11(4)(iv)of the Act. The order also gave first option to have the reconstructed building allotted to the tenant with liability to pay fair rent as provided in the third Proviso to S.11(4)(iv) of the Act. A revision filed by the tenant was dismissed. A further revision to this court also ended in dismissal. the petitioner obtained possession of the building on 21-9-1976 and demolished the building. However, he did not reconstruct the building within six months in accordance with the directions contained in the order of eviction. In the circumstances, the tenant filed I.A. No. 428 of 1978 before the Rent Control Court for a direction to the respondent to reconstruct the building. By order dated 9-10-1980, the Rent Control Court gave a direction to reconstruct the building within six months. An appeal was filed by the landlord against the said order in R.C.A No.25 of 1981 which was dismissed. R.CR.P. No.62 of 1982 filed by the landlord challenging the order in R.C.A. No.25 of 1981 also ended in dismissal. In spite of this, respondent did not take any steps to reconstruct the building. At the instance of the tenant, in LA. No.3504 of 1984, a further direction for reconstruction of the building within six months was given to the landlord by the Rent Control Court. Still, the landlord did not comply with the order. Thereupon, the tenant moved I.A.No.5814 of 1986 before the Rent Control Court for a direction to the landlord to reconstruct the building and to pay compensation to him, besides imposition of a fine. The Rent Control Court by order dated 17-10-1989 directed the landlord to reconstruct the building and pay a fine of Rs.500/-. That order was challenged in R.C.A No.20 of 1990, which ended in dismissal, against which C.R.P. No.2576 of 1990 was filed before this court. The main ground alleged by the landlord was that the Municipality did not renew the licence and therefore he was not able to start construction. Finding that there was no bona fides in this contention, this court by order dated 28-2-1990 again directed the respondent to reconstruct the building within six months. It can be seen from the said order that the counsel for the Municipality submitted that the Municipality had no objection to the proposed construction. This Court passed an order on 4-3-1991 stating that there is no impediment for constructing the building as per the sanctioned plan. Ultimately, this court disposed of CRP. No.2576/90 and 115/91 with the following observations:-

(3.) It is obvious from the above observations that this court was led to believe that landlord would start reconstruction immediately after the disposal of the revision petitions. But what we find is that at his instance, a stranger filed Original Petition No.5227 of 1991 before this court alleging that the plan for reconstruction was passed in violation of the Building Rules and seeking to quash the plan and licence. An interim stay of reconstruction was obtained without impleading the tenant. However, the tenant got himself impleaded as additional 3rd respondent in the Original Petition. The Original Petition was dismissed with costs on 17-6-1991 with the following observations:-