PULAKOOTIL PUTHAN VEETTIL KARTHIYANI AMMA Vs. ATHIKKOTTU MALIYAKKAL KUNHAN CHETTIAR'S WIFE LAKSHMI AMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A tenant has been evicted pursuant to the order of Rent Control Court which upheld landlord's claim that the building needs reconstruction. But after eviction, the landlord, instead of reconstructing the building, used it for conducting a business for her son. Now the landlord is directed to re-induct the tenant in the building and also to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. This revision is against the judgment of the District Court which directed the landlord as above.

(2.) THOUGH the application for eviction was filed on three distinct grounds arrears of rent, sub-letting and need to reconstruct, the landlord finally got the order of eviction only on the ground that the building needs reconstruction. During the pendency of proceedings, original tenant died and his legal representatives are respondents 1 to 9. A condition attached to the order of eviction was that ground floor of the new building should be let out to respondents 1 to 9 on fair rent. As the period of one year for reconstruction of the building since eviction was over, landlord got it extended by one more year. However, she did not commence reconstruction, nor did she pull down the existing building. Instead she allowed her son to occupy the existing building to do some business. It was then that respondents approached the Rent Control Court for appropriate directions.

(3.) RENT Control Court, strangely, accepted all such excuses and dismissed the tenant's application for appropriate directions to be issued to the landlord. But learned District Judge reversed the order and passed the impugned direction.