LUKOSE T.J. Vs. ASHA TEGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Landlady's attempt to evict two tenants for the need of her husband to create an open space for a building constructed by the husband on an adjacent land has been successful. The husband intends to occupy the land after the demolition of the tenanted premises. The tenants have come up with these revisions. The rent control petitions were tried by the Rent Controller in different proceedings. As a result, divergent findings were made by the Rent controller. However, the appellate authority heard the matter together and passed an order allowing eviction sought by the landlady under Sec. 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control)Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act").

(2.) The learned counsel for the tenants, Shri Abraham George Jacob, ably argued the matter in extenso and submitted that the appellate authority misread Sec. 11(3) of the Act by allowing eviction. According to the learned counsel, the need projected was for the husband to occupy the tenanted premises after demolition, for creating an open space for a building illegally constructed by the husband in the adjacent land. By elaborating his argument, he submits that a need cannot be termed as 'bona fide' to take advantage of a wrong committed by constructing an illegal building. He further submits that the husband had let out his building to the tenants and, therefore, the need is actually to ensure the occupancy of the building by those tenants under the husband. He also submits that Sec. 11(3) is not attracted in as much as that the occupancy was not for the husband but for those tenants under him.

(3.) Per contra, the learned counsel for the landlady submits that the need arose essentially when the Municipality cancelled the occupancy certificate of the adjacent building belonging to the husband as it was found that the building was constructed without the required open space. Hence, it is submitted that in order to comply with the Municipal Building Rules, the building in occupation of the tenants are required to be demolished. The learned counsel further submits that the land after demolition of the existing building will be retained as an open space for the building constructed by the husband, and the husband will occupy that land for his building. He submits that it is not for the tenants under the husband, rather, the land is required for the husband himself.