S N D P UNION Vs. VAMANA NAIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE of the buildings of the respondent (landlord) was rented out to 'sndp Union' for housing its local office. When petitioner (who is the tenant) acquired a plot o*-60 cents of land with a building thereon, landlord initiated eviction proceedings against the tenant under the provisions of the Kerala Building (Lease) and Rent Control Act, 1965, (for short the act' ). In addition to the ground envisaged in S. 11 (4) (iii) of the Act, landlord tried to get eviction order on the ground envisaged in S. 11 (3) also contending that he needs the building for his own occupation to conduct a tutorial college. Although the landlord could not succeed on the latter ground, he did succeed on the former ground before the Appellate Authority (Rent Control Court had dismissed his application rejecting both the grounds ). Tenant filed a revision before the District Court, but the Revisional Authority did not interfere and dismissed the revision. Hence, the tenant has filed this Original petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) THE main contention advanced by the petitioner -tenant is that the Appellate Authority wrongly exercised its jurisdiction by holding that the building acquired by the tenant is sufficient for its requirement. Petitioner further contended that the Revisional Authority failed to exercise its jurisdiction when it declined to interfere.

(3.) SECTION 11 (4) (iii) of the Act is extracted below: "a landlord may apply to the Rent Control Court for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building- (iii) If the tenant already has in his possession a building or subsequently acquires possession of or puts up a building, reasonably sufficient for his requirements in the same city, town or village".