PUTHAMPURAYIL MARIYAM Vs. SUNENDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition is filed by the defeated landlord being aggrieved by the rejection of the application for eviction. We would refer the parties as they are arrayed in the Rent Control Petition. Four petitioners are co-owners of the building. The eviction was sought on three grounds-viz., under S. 11(3) (bona fide need). Sections 11(4)(ii) (i.e., use of the building by the tenant so as to reduce its value materially and permanently) and 11(4)(iii) (i.e., tenants having a building sufficient for their occupation) -- of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (for short 'the Act'). It was specifically averred that the building is needed for Sri. Ibrahim Puthenpurayil, the husband of the first petitioner and a dependent of her, for the purpose of running a grocery trade. It was averred that the petitioners bona fide need the said building for providing the same to Ibrahim. It was also alleged that the 5th respondent is running a business in the petition schedule building and was convicted for the offence of adulterating honey and therefore the tenants are using the building to destroy and reduce the value and utility materially and permanently. Objections were filed by the respondents tenants and the parties led evidence. PW 1 was examined on the side of the petitioners and Exhibits A1 and A2 were marked. Respondents have not adduced any oral or documentary evidence.

(2.) The Rent Control Court found in paragraph 13 of the order that the petitioners are entitled for an order of eviction under 11(3) of the Act. In paragraph 14 the ground pleaded, under S. 11(4)(ii) was found against the petitioners. No evidence was let in by the landlords to prove that tenants are having other rooms in their possession to attract S. 11(4)(iii) of the Act. Thus, ultimately eviction was ordered under S. 11(3) of the Act and the other grounds were disallowed, against which an appeal was filed by the tenants as R.C. Appeal 41 of 2010.

(3.) Now we are called up on to decide the question whether the view taken by the Appellate Authority that the subsequent event has its own impact on the ground pleaded under S. 11(3) is correct. The husband of the first petitioner died on 18.3.2011, which is the subsequent event that had occurred. In the appeal, I.A. 46/2011 was filed by the petitioners seeking amendment of the Rent Control Petition. The amendment sought was on the plea that her son who was abroad has decided to come to India to look after the first petitioner and her daughter and the prayer in the petition was that the petition schedule room is required for doing business by the petitioner's son. She has two daughters, one daughter is married and other daughter is yet to be married. The I.A. was dismissed on the ground that though there is an order of eviction in favour of the landlord under S. 11(3), as admittedly the dependent husband of the first petitioner is no more the bona fide need does not survive.