CHAKKUNNY Vs. A M ABDUL KALAM AZAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These revision petitions relate to the common judgment passed by the First Additional District Judge and Rent Control Appellate Authority, Ernakulam in R. C. A. Nos. 19 of 1999 and 20 of 1999 filed by the tenants in Rent Control Petition Nos. 62 of 1991 and 67 of 1991 as well as on the Memorandum of Cross Objections filed by the landlords. R. C. P. Nos 62 of 1991 and 67 of 1991 were instituted by the original landlord, viz., one Mr. Abdul Kalam Azad and the present landlords were impleaded in the proceedings upon his demise being his legal representatives. One Chakkunny, the original tenant was the respondent in R. C. P. No. 62 of 1991 and upon his demise, the present tenants his legal heirs were impleaded. C. R. P. Nos. 2158/02 and 907/03 are revisions filed by the present tenants and the present landlords respectively in respect of the building in R. C. P. No. 62 of 1991. Similarly C. R. P Nos. 2692 of 2002 and 908 of 2003 pertain to the building which is the subject matter of R. C. P. 67 of 1991.

(2.) The common ground invoked in both the rent control petition are bona fide need of own occupation under section 11 (3) and requirement of reconstruction under section 11(4) (iv). R. C. P. No. 67 of 1991 additional ground of subletting under section 11 (4) (i) and cessation of occupation under section 11 (4) (v) were also invoked. The claim of the original landlord who filed rent control petition under section 11(3) was that he bona fide needs to conduct business in plywood in the premises which were the subject matter of the two R. C. Ps. Since he was hard pressed for money to support himself and his family consisting also of wife and three children. The claim was denied by the respondents in both the cases who contended that the original landlord was well off. Sri. Azad, the original landlord died during the pendency of the proceedings. The Rent Control Court took the view that the need projected in the rent control petition was purely personal to Sri. Azad and the demise of Sri. Azad was an event which eclipsed the need altogether and did not survive to his heirs at a 11. In that view of the matter the Rent Control Court did not find it necessary to enquire into the question as to wether the tenants who had contended that they are eligible to the protection of the second proviso are so entitled. The Rent Control Appellate Authority relying on the decision of this Court in Kutty Krishna v. Cheriyeri Raran (2001 (3) KLT P.29, SN. Case No. 41) held that on the facts of the present case, the demise of Sri. Azad did not completely eclipse the bona fide need urged by him from the point of view of the present landlords. On that reasoning and on the basis of the evidence adduced by P. W. 1 in that context, the Appellate Authority held that merely by the reason of Mr. Azad's demise the need did not cease to exist. However, on merits, the Appellate Authority found that the version of P. W.1. - the original 1and1ord's wife was at variance with the specific pleadings of her husband and that the totality of the evidence adduced by the present 1and1ord's would go to show that the need and the claim under section 11(3) was not bona fide.

(3.) As for the ground of reconstruction, both the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority concurrently found that the building was in a such a condition that it needed reconstruction and that the present landlords require bona fide to reconstruct the same and ordered eviction on that ground. The ground of cessation of occupation invoked in R. C. P. No. 67 of 1991 was repelled by the Rent Control Court and in appeal to the Appellate Authority against that order, the appellate authority found that the ground of subletting invoked in R. C. P. No. 67 of 1991 stood established in evidence and ordered eviction in that case under section 11(4) ( i ) also. The Appellate Authority also on a re-appreciation of the entire evidence pertaining to that ground concurred with the finding of the Rent Control Court. All parties are aggrieved to the extent they failed before the Appellate Authority.