PUTHUPARAMBAN HAMZA Vs. PATHUMMAKUTTY ALIAS FATHIMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is filed at the instance of the tenant of a building who is conducting a hotel in the petition schedule building. The landlords sought eviction under Sections 11(3), 11(4)(iv) and 11(8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (for short, the 'Act') and under Section 11(4)(i) of the Act which was added later. The Rent Control Court allowed eviction under Sections 11(3) and 11(4)(i) of the Act and the prayer for eviction under Sections 11(4)(iv) and 11(8) of the Act was rejected. The Appellate Authority allowed eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act and disallowed eviction on other grounds. Even though the landlords have filed a cross objection to set aside the Judgment of the Appellate Authority to the extent to which it had interfered with the order of eviction under Section 11(4)(i) of the Act, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the landlords are seeking relief only under Section 11(3) of the Act. Therefore, we proceed to consider the respective contentions of the parties under Section 11(3) of the Act.

(2.) LEARNED counsel Shri Rajesh R.Kormath appearing for the petitioner submitted that it is a case where the landlords' prayer under Section 11(4)(iv) of the Act for reconstruction was rejected for the reason that the Municipality rejected the application for Permit and Licence for construction of the new Building in the vacant space at the back of the existing building. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the said aspect will tell upon the bona fides of the claim under Section 11(3) of the Act also since in the eviction petition what is projected is the requirement of the petitioners 5 and 6 therein (respondents 4 and 5 in the rent control revision) who are conducting business elsewhere, for occupying the petition schedule building after providing modern facilities. It is submitted therefore, that as the said aspect will tell upon the bona fide need of the landlords itself, the Appellate Authority was not justified in allowing eviction by upholding the claim under Section 11(3) of the Act. It is also the case of the learned counsel for the petitioner that an over all reading of the rent control petition will show that the landlords have not pleaded a definite case including the one relating to the specific portion of the petition schedule building to which eviction petition is filed.

(3.) OUR attention was invited to the pleadings and evidence of the parties by the learned counsel appearing on both sides.