PONAM KRISHNAN Vs. BHARATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defeated tenants are the petitioners herein, aggrieved by the common judgment rendered by the Appellate Authority in R.C.A. Nos. 15/2010 and 17/2010. The appeals were filed by the landlords aggrieved by the rejection of the application for eviction on various grounds under Ss. 11(3), 11(4)(ii) and 11(4)(iv) of the Act The Appellate Authority by reversing the order of the Rent Control Court ordered eviction under S. 11(3) and 11(4)(iv) of the Act. i.e., bona fide need and for reconstruction of the building. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners raised the following arguments:-

(2.) It is submitted that as far as eviction sought under S. 11(4)(iv) is concerned, admittedly, the plan and license were not produced along with the eviction petition. It is submitted that the area in question is in a Municipality. Therefore the landlord ought to have obtained mandatory license. The learned counsel further contended that before the Appellate Authority along with an application under O. XLI R. 27, the same was produced. But that was only after the order was passed by the Rent Controller. The learned counsel in that context drew our attention to a decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Beeyathu v. Gopalan, 2005 1 KerLT 313 (F.B.), especially paragraph 15.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the evidence as of now produced before the Appellate Authority will show that an application was there even before the filing of the Rent Control Petition and therefore nothing turns upon the filing of the same before the Rent Control Appellate Authority.