IKKORAKUTTY Vs. E M HARIHARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The landlord, a retired District Educational Officer (retired, but not tired), now in his sixties, worth in terms of material assets Rupees Seven lakhs on his estimate, having started, in his pursuit to better his lot, a tutorial college, conducting the classes mostly at his house, and sometimes in his cinema hall, filed R. C. O. P. No. 14 of 1967 on the file of the Rent Controller (Munsiff) of Irinjalakuda, purported to be an application under S.11(4)(iv) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 2 of 1965, in an attempt to recover possession of the petition schedule building, wherein the tenant had been carrying on a coffee stall cum hotel for over a decade in a bid to earn a sum of Rs. 8/- per day to keep life going for himself and the members of his family.

(2.) Though the petition is purported to be one under S.11(4)(iv) only, from the averment in the petition and the manner in which the parties have understood the matter, I have no hesitation in holding that the petition is one under S.11(4)(iv) as well as S.11(3). I, therefore, repel the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner that the courts below have gone wrong in teating the petition as one under S.11(3) and 11(4)(iv) of the Act.

(3.) Treating the petition as one for recovery of possession under S.11(4)(iv) (need for bona fide reconstruction) and under S.11(3) (bona fide need for own occupation) the Rent Controller entered finding that both the grounds urged have cot been made out and dismissed the petition. The landlord took up the matter in appeal, A. S. No. 77 of 1969 on the file of the appellate authority (Subordinate Judge of Irinjalakuda) who reversed the finding of the Rent Controller with respect to both the grounds, allowed the appeal, and directed the tenant to surrender possession of the building. The defeated tenant took up the matter in revision in R. C. R. P. No. 16 of 1971 on the file of the District Court, Trichur. The District Court while holding the decision of the appellate authority that the landlord required recovery of the building for bona fide reconstruction to be untenable, nevertheless, ordered eviction on the ground that the landlord had the bona fide need for his own occupation. It is the correctness of this order of the District Court that is under challenge in this revision petition.