GEORGE MAMPILLY Vs. KARTHYANI SAMBU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the landlord of a building challenges an order of the Revisional Authority under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short 'the Act') setting aside the decree of eviction passed by the Appellate Authority under S.11(8) of the Act.

(2.) A short history of the case is found to be relevant for formulating resoluteness on the dispute enwrapped in this case. It can be condensed thus: The building involved in the present petition called 'Mampilly building' was erected by one Ephrain Mampilly, and after his demise it was partitioned between petitioner and his brother who are his legal heirs. In the partition, the northern block of the building was allotted to the petitioner whereas the southern block was apportioned to the share of Dr Kurien Mampilly. The rooms in the northern block were occupied by Federal Bank and one S. N. Menon and they were evicted through the Court Proceedings. In the upstair rooms of the building the petitioner and his wife Dr Lalitha Mampilly were residing. They started a clinic with a dispensary under the name of 'Mampilly Clinic' in the down stairs. The petitioner and his wife being practising Doctors, had decided to outspread the existing clinic into a full fledged Nursing Home with all modern medical facilities. With that end in view, the petitioner later purchased the southern block of the building from his brother Dr Kurien Mampilly as per the assignment deed dated 2-3-1977. There were in all eight rooms in the southern block, five in upstairs and three in downstairs, Five tenants in the upstairs had vacated the rooms and capitulated possession to the landlord. Out of three rooms in the downstairs. one room was occupied by the first respondent (hereinafter called as 'the tenant') on a monthly rent of Rs 80/-, A notice was issued to him on 4-9-1978 requesting to vacate the room in his possession. However, the tenant refused to surrender and consequently a petition for eviction was moved before the Rent Control Court under the provisions of the Act. The above petition was resisted by the tenant and the Rent Control Court finally dismissed it on the ground that the landlord was not entitled to evict the tenant on any of the grounds alleged in the petition. Being aggrieved by the said order, the landlord filed an appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority under S.18 of the Act. The Appellate Authority found that the averments in the petition for eviction would constitute the ground as one under S.11(8) namely; additional accommodation for personal use. Ultimately the Appellate Authority ordered eviction under S.11(8) of the Act finding that the ground of additional accommodation was made out. As against the said judgment, the tenant filed a revision before the Rent Control Revisional Authority under S.20. The revisional authority by order dated 7-12-1983 (Ext. P3) found that the claim of the landlord would definitely come under S.11(8). However, it further found that the claim that the landlord should get eviction of the room for the purpose of expansion of his clinic into a nursing home is not bona fide. The revisional authority also observed that in case eviction under S.11(8) of the Act was to be allowed, proviso to S.11(10) of the Act would not stand in the way of the order of eviction being passed on that ground. Being aggrieved by the said order refusing eviction, the landlord filed C. R. P. No. 752 of 1984 before this court. The tenant also filed a revision (C. R. P. No 998/1984) before this court as against certain findings entered against him. Both the revisions were disposed of by this court in view of the decision in Aundal Ammal v. Sadasiva Pillai, reported in 1987 (1) KLT 53 , holding that a revision petition under S.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not maintainable against an order made under S.20 of the Act. The petitioner thereupon filed a Special Leave Petition, S. L. P. No 7958 of 1987, before the Supreme Court against the order of this court in C. R. P. No 752 of 1984. After bearing, the Supreme Court allowed the Special Leave Petition and accordingly set aside the order of this court in the above C. R. P. Pursuant to the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court, this writ petition has been filed by the landlord under Art.226 and 227 of the Constitution seeking to quash Ext. P3 order of the revisional authority.

(3.) Before dealing with the crucial question whether Ext. P3 order of the revisional authority is legal and valid, there are certain points to be considered and decided primarily. The Supreme Court while disposing of the S. L. P. No 7958/1987 observed in Ext. P5 order thus :