ANNIE Vs. HEDWIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Tenants are the revision petitioners. Order of eviction dated 25-1-2003 in R. C. P. No. 115 of 1994 passed by the Rent Control Court, Ernakulam and affirmed by the appellate authority as per order dated 18-11-2003 in R. C. A. No. 72 of 2003 concurrently finding that the landlord bona fide needs the building (hereinafter referred to as the 'building') for his own occupation, are sought to be set aside in this revision petition filed under S.20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). This is the second round of litigation between the petitioners and the respondent landlord. In the first round of litigation the findings of the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority were against the landlord. Those findings were challenged by him in C. R. P. No. 639 of 2001 filed before this Court. Having regard to the contention that change of circumstances had taken place in view of the subsequent events, C. R. P. No. 639 of 2001 was disposed of by this Court by order dated 5-09-2002 setting aside the orders impugned therein and remanding the matter for fresh consideration after affording opportunity to the parties to adduce further evidence. In the light of the directions contained in the impugned order, the Rent Control Court allowed both parties in adduce further evidence and the court considered the evidence thus adduced and found that the need set up by the landlord was bona fide.

(2.) Respondent landlord is the owner of the residential building occupied by the petitioners as tenants. Respondent has no other building of his own. He is married and presently residing with his wife and two children in the house belonging to his brother. After the brother's marriage the atmosphere in the family became tense on account of the bickering between the wives of the two brothers and in order to avoid the relationship between the families of the two brothers getting strained irreparably the respondent landlord wished to reside separately and in the above circumstances the need for own occupation of the tenanted building by the landlord arose.

(3.) According to the respondent the need is bona fide. But petitioners / tenants would resist the claim contending that the brother of the landlord was staying with his wife in Mumbai and there was no occasion for the alleged quarrel between the two wives. This plea raised by the petitioners was accepted by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority in the first round of litigation. Now after remand, the Rent Control Court has reappreciated the evidence in the light of the further evidence adduced by the parties. Evidence now available is to the effect that the brother with his wife has come back from Mumbai and both the families are residing in one and the same house. The Rent Control Court has believed the evidence adduced by the landlord with regard to the subsequent events and has found that the landlord has made out a case for eviction under S.11(3) of the Act. Consequently the petitioners have been ordered to be evicted from the building. The contention of the petitioners that notwithstanding the subsequent events the respondent could continue to reside in the house of his brother was rightly rejected by the Rent Control Court. Challenging the bona fides of the need pleaded by the respondent, it was also contended by the petitioners that the condition of the building is such that it is unsuitable for the landlord to reside therein without effecting modifications or alterations to the building. The above contention was also rightly repelled by the Rent Control Court. The findings entered by the Rent Control Court have been affirmed by the Appellate Authority. We also notice that there is concurrent finding by the two authorities below that the respondent landlord has no other building of his own except the building occupied by the revision petitioners. The courts below have rightly held that it was quite unnecessary to make an endeavour to find out as to how the landlord could have adjusted himself in his brother's house. The landlord is the best judge of his requirements and he should be given complete freedom to choose the place of his residence. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence evaluated by the two authorities under the Act, we are satisfied that the courts below have appreciated the evidence on record properly and that the landlord has established that his need for the tenanted building is bona fide and reasonable.