K. MUKUNDAN Vs. T.K. THOMAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE Civil Revision Petitions arise out of Rent Control Petitions filed by the respondent herein for eviction of the tenants from the respective petition scheduled premises under Sections 11(2) and 11(4)(iv) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1965, which is hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for short. All Rent Control Petitions were tried jointly and a common judgment was rendered by the Rent Control Court allowing eviction both under Section 11(2) and Section 11(4)(iv) of the Act. The appeals filed by the respective tenants were dismissed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the orders passed by the Rent Control Court. These revision petitions have been filed by the respective tenants.

(2.) BOTH the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority found that the tenants have committed default in payment of rent and that the building needs reconstruction and the landlord bonafide requires to reconstruct the same. In view of the concurrent findings of the authorities below, the counsel for petitioner strained very much to convince us that the findings of the Courts below are not supported by any legal evidence, but we are satisfied that the orders do not suffer from any infirmity. We, therefore, affirm the said findings.

(3.) CLAUSE (4) of Sub-section (iv) of Section 11 lays down that an order of eviction on the ground of bonafide requirement to reconstruct the building can be ordered, if only that the landlord has the plan and licence and ability to rebuild. The contention of the learned counsel is that though initially the petitioner had licence from the Municipality and an approved plan, as the period of licence granted by the Municipality expired and by order of the Municipal Commissioner dated 29.12.1990 the Commissioner declined to renew the licence, the impugned orders allowing eviction for reconstruction are liable to be set aside.