MOHAMMEDKUTTY Vs. JANAKI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TENANT is the revision petitioner. Eviction was sought under S. 11 (3) of Act 2 of 1965. Rent Control Court ordered eviction under S. 11 (3) of the Act which was confirmed by the Appellate authority. Aggrieved by the same this revision petition has been preferred.

(2.) TENANT is in occupation of the building from 1976 onwards and is conducting tailoring business in that building. Landlord wanted vacant possession for conducting a jewellery shop. Landlord and his children have already got two or three jewellery shops. On the side of the landlord 9th petitioner got himself examined as PW1. TENANT was examined as RW1 and accommodation Controller was examined as RW2. On the side of the landlord Exts. Al to A4 were marked. Exts. R1 to R3 were marked on the side of the tenant. Ext. C1 is the commission report. Ext. X1 is the Accommodation Register maintained by the Tahsildar, Ottappalam. On the basis of the oral and documentary evidence both the authorities below have concurrently found that the landlord has established the bona fide need under S. 11 (3) of the Act.

(3.) COUNSEL appearing for the tenant placed much reliance on the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court reported in Varkey v. Raman Pillai (1981 KLT 213 ). Reliance was also placed on the decision in sadanandan v. Kunheen (1991 (2) KLT 628) and Krishnankunju Raveendran v. Sukumara Pillai (1999 (3) KLT 373 ). Reliance was also placed on Para. 17 of the decision in Krishnankunju Raveendran's case, supra, which is extracted below. "the provision in the second proviso to S. 11 (3)"there is no other suitable buildings available in the locality for such person to carry on such trade or business" would make it clear that the vacant building should be one suitable for carrying on the business that the tenant was carrying on in the petition schedule building and also that the building should be available to the tenant. A building constructed at a very high cost with modern facilities suitable for running a star hotel or similar business need not or may not be a building suitable for running a petty teashop and may not be within the reach of the tenant. The landlord also may not let out such a building to a tenant for running a petty tea shop or for a meagre rent. The vacant building in the locality should be one within the reach of the tenant. If the vacant building will be available only on payment of huge deposits and on very high rent, then it may not be said that a suitable building was available in the locality where the tenant can carry on his trade or business. The vacant building should be within his financial reach. For the simple reason that there was some vacant buildings in the locality the tenant cannot be denied of the above protection under the second proviso to S. 11 (3) of the act. " Aforementioned dictum was subsequently explained by another Division Bench in Xavier v. Krishnakumari, 2000 (3) KLT 809. The Court held as follows: "whatever that be, the fact that the tenants will be forced to pay the rent that is commensurate with the rent now prevalent in the locality, is not a ground to deny the landlord an order for eviction under s. 11 (3) of the Act on the ground that no suitable building is available to the tenant in the locality. The Rent Control Act does not contemplate that the landlord and the tenant should be pinned down to the state of things as they were on the date of the letting. What the court is called upon is to see whether on paying the current going rate of rent, any other building in the locality is available for the tenant to shift his business. It cannot be expected that a tenant would now get a building on the rent that he originally agreed to pay to his landlord, in the same locality and in the same town. Rents have gone up. He will have to pay the prevalent rent in the locality consistent with the economic situation now obtaining. Therefore, the argument in that behalf raised by counsel for the tenants cannot be accepted. We do not see anything in the decision of this Court in Krishnankunju Raveendran v. Sukumara pillai, (1999 (3) KLT 373) which compels us to take a different view. The use of the expression suitable building can only mean suitable for his needs. It cannot be understood as a building for which the tenant need pay rent only at the rate that was prevailing twenty or thirty years ago. It will be an unrealistic interpretation of the statute. If the above decision has laid down any such proposition, with respect, we must say that we cannot find our way to agree with the same".