BRIJIT MICHEAL Vs. S.ANU SREEVARDHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The legal representatives of the tenant in a proceedings for eviction under Sec. 11(4)(iv) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (the Act) are the petitioners in this revision petition.

(2.) The tenant was occupying one out of the nine rooms in a commercial building. The landlord sought eviction of all the tenants in the building on the ground of re-construction. The Rent Control Court ordered eviction of the tenants and the said decision of the Rent Control Court was affirmed in appeal by the Appellate Authority. Three among the tenants including the predecessor of the petitioners preferred C.R.P.No.2350 of 1990 before this Court challenging the concurrent orders of eviction. The said civil revision petition was disposed of with a direction that the landlord has to produce before the execution court a valid plan and licence for the re-construction of the building.

(3.) Pursuant to the direction in C.R.P.No.2350 of 1990, the landlord obtained a plan and licence for the re-construction of the building on 1/3/1991 and produced the same before the Court. On the landlord producing the plan and licence, three tenants including the predecessor of the petitioners filed an interlocutory application before the execution court for issuance of a commission, to ascertain whether it is possible to put up a building as proposed in the plan. The execution court dismissed the said application. The tenants aforesaid challenged the decision on the said interlocutory application before this Court in C.R.P.No.1688 of 1991. The said civil revision petition was disposed of in terms of a compromise arrived at between the parties. The compromise, as far as the present case is concerned, was that, the tenant would surrender vacant possession of the portion of the building occupied by him to the landlord and that the landlord would reconstruct the building and re-induct the tenant in shop No.6 shown in the plan. Pursuant to the order passed in C.R.P.No.1688 of 1991, the tenant surrendered the portion of the building held by him to the landlord and the landlord, in turn, re-constructed the building. Though the re-construction was not strictly in accordance with the plan, the landlord re-inducted the tenant in shop No.6 shown in the plan.