PADMAKSHI T K Vs. AMMALU AMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the third revision stemmed from R.C.P. 19/1998 of the Rent Control Court Vadakara, which was filed two and a half decades ago, seeking eviction under 11 (3) of the Kerala Building lease and Rent Control Act. Despite the long lapse of time, the parties have won and lost alternatively at different stages in the hierarchy of appellate courts and went up to the Apex Court twice, the original petition is still awaiting for its finality. The revision petitioner has sought eviction contending inter alia that her elder son Anoop Krishnan aged 25 years is not having any avocation and that the tenanted premises is bona fide required for him to eke out his livelihood. Initially, the original tenant has resisted the rent control petition contending inter alia that he is entitled to get the right of fixity of tenure under the Kerala Land Reform Act, 1963. The Rent Control Court found that the tenant has the right of fixity of tenure and he is not a tenant falling under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The landlord has preferred Rent Control Appeal No. 38/1993. The appellate court modified the order holding that the petitioner can move the civil court for appropriate reliefs.

(2.) The tenants preferred first revision C.R.P. No. 114/1997 before this Court. In that revision the order passed by the rent control court and the appellate authority were set aside and the Rent Control Petition was remanded back for fresh disposal. Thereafter the Rent Control Court considered the right of fixity of tenure alone and found that denial of title raised by the tenants is not bona fide. Against the said order, the tenants filed appeal as R.C.A. No. 184/2004; but the appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority confirming the findings of the Rent Control Court. The tenants preferred second revision R.C.R. No. 409/2005 before this Court. This Court confirmed the concurrent findings of the courts below that the denial of title on the claim of permanent tenancy is not bonafide, dismissed the revision and the case was remitted back to the Rent Control Court for considering the issue whether the petitioner is entitled to get eviction under Section 11(3) of the Building Lease and Rent Control Act. Though the tenants preferred SLP(C)No. 27616/2009 before the Supreme Court, that was also dismissed. Thus, the preliminary issue challenging the maintainability of the Rent Control Petition before the Rent Control Court has attained finality. Then the parties went for trial on the merit of the ground under Section 11(3). PW1 was examined and Exts. A1 to A17 were marked for the petitioner. RW1 was examined and Exts. B1 to B72 were marked for the respondents. Exts. C1 to C5 ere marked as court exhibits. After the trial, the learned Rent Controller allowed the petition finding that the need is bona fide. The respondents preferred R.C.A. No. 8/2010 challenging the order of eviction. The appellate authority though concurred with the findings bonafide need, reversed the findings under both limbs of the second proviso to Section 11 (3) and allowed the appeal on the finding that the tenants are entitled to get protection under second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. This revision is filed by the landlord challenging the impugned judgment passed by the appellate court.

(3.) Submissions at the Bar: