K NARAYANANKUTTY Vs. ABIIDA ABDUL KAREEM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that has come up for consideration is whether eviction sought for by the landlord of the tenanted premises so as to use it as a pathway for the proposed multi - storeyed building would come within the scope of S.11(3) or 11(4)(iv) of Act 2 of 1965. Landlords maintained the stand that their requirement would come within the scope of S.11(3) of the Act. Tenant would contend that it would fall under S.11(4)(iv) of the Act. Consequently he could get the benefit of re - entry and stake claim for an equal area after reconstruction.

(2.) Rent Control Court as well as the Appellate Authority took the view that the claim of the landlords would fall under S.11(3) and not under S.11(4)(iv). Appellate Authority alternatively considered the plea as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the claim would fall under S.11(4)(iv) and gave option to the tenant to accept the premises offered by the landlords.

(3.) Landlord - tenant relationship is not in dispute. Landlords are owners of plot of land in a commercially important area on the side of Jews Street in the Cochin City. Petition - scheduled building is situated on the southern side of the plot abutting the road. Landlords wanted to construct a multi - storeyed commercial building in the plot. Proposal was to construct a line of shop rooms facing east. Between the compound wall on the east and the proposed building, landlords were able to leave a three meter wide pathway as access to the newly constructed building. Further it was pointed out on the eastern side of the plot belonging to the landlords there was another building referred to as Balaji building. The owner of the said plot had constructed buildings in his property leaving a three metre wide pathway on the west of his building. Landlords thought that if they demolish the compound wall on the eastern side of their property, the pathway left by them on the east to their building and the pathway left by the owners of Balaji building on the west of their building could be used together for the common advantage of both the petitioner and landlords.