JANAKI Vs. MADHAVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question arising for decision in this writ application depends on the interpretation to be placed on S.11(17) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1959. That section is in these terms:

(2.) The landlord, the petitioner before me, who was away in Africa for more than ten years, returned to this country and applied to the Rent Control Court for evicting the tenants, Respondents 1 and 2. These tenants were initiated into the property before the 1st of April, 1940 by the Karanavan of the petitioner's tarwad. The property belongs to the tarwad of the petitioner. When the petitioner returned to her native place, she obtained a Kuzhikanam lease from the karanavan of the tarwad and it was specifically proved in that lease deed that the petitioner may take steps to evict the tenants. It was pursuant to this document that the eviction proceedings commenced.

(3.) The Rent Control Court found that the petitioner and her children required the house for their bona fide need and notwithstanding S.11(17) came to the conclusion that the petitioner is entitled to eviction of the tenants and ordered eviction. In appeal the appellate authority, as well as the revisional authority in further revision, respondents 3 and 4 respectively, took the view that the petitioner was not the landlord at the time of the lease and that the petitioner though she had stayed outside the city, town or village for the requisite period cannot claim the benefit of the proviso to sub-s.(17). Accordingly the eviction petition was dismissed.