KOCHUVAVAKUNJU Vs. KATHERU KUNJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Original Petition is by the landlord/petitioner in a Rent Control Petition. He filed the petition to evict the tenant, viz. the first respondent on grounds available under S.11(2)(b) and 11(4)(iv) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act'). The Rent Control Court allowed eviction under S.11(2)(b) as well as under S.11(4)(iv). On appeal, the appellate authority allowed the appeal and set aside the finding under S.11(4)(iv) of the Act. Revision against the appellate order was also dismissed. The orders of the Rent Control Court, the appellate authority and the revisional authority are produced as Exts. P-1, P-2 and P-3 respectively. This petition is filed by the landlord to quash Exts. P-2 and P-3 orders, The only ground urged before me is that the finding of the appellate authority, in setting aside the finding under S.11 (4) (iv), is vitiated by error apparent on the face of the records.

(2.) Petitioner had five cents of land in which he constructed two buildings one on the southern portion and the other on the northern portion of the land. The eviction with which we are concerned relates to the building situated in the northern portion. The Rent Control Court held that the building is in such a condition that it needs reconstruction and that the petitioner has satisfied the court that he has the plan and licence, and the ability to build. But the appellate authority came to the conclusion that the plan and the licence produced in the case related to the building situated in the southern portion and not to the schedule building which is situated in the northern portion. In that view of the matter, the appeal was allowed. In revision, the conclusion of the appellate authority was upheld. The Rent Control Court examined the commission report from which it came to the conclusion that the scheduled building is in such a condition as to need reconstruction. It also came to the conclusion that there was a plan and licence produced by the petitioner, even though not at the time of filing the petition, which convinced the Court that the, petitioner held necessary licence and plan for the construction. I am not concerned with the capacity of the petitioner to reconstruct the building, for the same is not in dispute here. The Appellate Authority vacated the finding of the Rent Control Court and came to the conclusion that the petitioner had three rooms in the southern portion of the land which were given to two persons, one Govinda Pillai and one Rajan. Sri Govinda Pillai was f conducting a ration shop and a typewriting institute in the two rooms and Sri Rajan was conducting a barbershop in the 3rd room. Petitioner had taken proceedings to vacate those persons in 1975 and, in that connection, obtained a plan and licence in respect of that building and produced in that case which was again produced before the Rent Control Court in the proceedings taken in 1978. It is on that finding, the appellate authority came to the conclusion that the finding Of the Rent Control Court that there is a plan and licence in respect of the schedule building cannot be relied upon. The revision petition filed against this, order was also dismissed.

(3.) Exts. P-2 and P-3, on the reasoning given cannot be considered in any way vitiated. The conclusion in Exts. P-2 and P-3 are also a plausible conclusion and this Court will not function as an appellate Court in examining these aspects. The question whether plan itself is required need not be considered further, for S.11(4)(iv) specifically provides :that the Court must be satisfied that the landlord has plan and licence for reconstruction of the building. If the landlord does not reconstruct the building, the Court has power, at any time, to issue directions regarding reconstruction of the building to give effect to the order, and to give a direction for reconstruction, plan and licence will be required at that time. That may be the reason why plan and licence is insisted upon in S.11 (4) (iv) of the Act.