NARAYANA DHARMASABHA Vs. SATHIAPALAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether the need of a public institution with the financial, educational and cultural uplift of the members of the institutions as its objective to conduct a business for raising funds for achieving the aforementioned objective be termed as a need for the purposes of the institution within the ambit of sub-s.(7) of S.11 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act is the question which arises for consideration in this case.

(2.) The facts having been narrated in detail in the orders passed by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority need be stated only very briefly. The revision petitioner landlord is the Sree Narayana Dharmasabha at Kodungallur, a society registered under Act 12 of 1955. The building which is the subject matter of the proceedings for eviction under the Rent Control Act presently occupied by the respondent tenant belongs to the revision petitioner society. Eviction was sought on various grounds under the Rent Control Act including the ground under Sub-s.(7) of S.11, the only ground which presently survives for consideration. S.11(7) was invoked on the pleading that the landlord society has been established for propagating ideals of Sreenarayana Guru amongst the public and also for the social, financial and educational uplift of the people who believe in Sreenarayana Guru's ideals to whom membership in the society is open. The society needs to conduct a business in bicycles and other household articles in the petitioner schedule building so that the extra income which is expected to be generated out of such business will enable the society to render more service to the members. It was claimed in the rent control petition itself that the society has on 17.6.1994 taken a decision regarding commencement of the proposed business. The counter of the respondent tenant to the extent the same pertained to the eviction ground under S.11(7) was that the society has no need for getting vacant surrender of the room and that even if the society has decided to start the proposed business in the room the same is only to foist a cause of action for instituting the rent control petition and eviction will result in considerable hardship for the tenant.

(3.) The Rent Control Court on an evaluation of the evidence which consisted of the oral testimony of the then Secretary of the Society as P.Ws.1 and 7 documents including Ext. A5 bye laws of the society and Ext.A4 copy of the resolution adopted by the society regarding the commencement of the proposed business found that the nature of the landlord society as a public institution was evident and even admitted. That court also found that all round welfare of the members of the society being the principle objective of the society conduct of business for augmentation of the income to be utilized for achieving the welfare of the members also will come within the scope of the expression "purposes of the institution" provided under sub-s.(7) of the S.11 of the statute. The Rent Control Court also found that even though sub-s.(7) of S.11 is qualified by S.10 and to that extent an enquiry into the bona fides of the claim is certainly warranted, the test of bona fides under sub-s.(7) is less rigorous than under sub-s.(3) of S.11 and the standard of proof required is relatively liberal. Accordingly that court ordered eviction against the tenant under S.11(7). The Rent Control Appellate Authority however disagreed with the Rent Control Court. That Authority noticed that in order to succeed in a claim under S.11(7) any public institution will have to establish two facts namely, (1) that there is a need, and (2) that the need is for the purposes of the institution. According to the Appellate Authority the claim of the institution that it wants to do business for generating income for achieving its purposes cannot in all cases be branded as a claim for the purposes of the institution itself. The Appellate Authority drew a distinction between the members of the institution and the institution itself and ultimately held that the evidence was only to the effect that the ultimate beneficiaries of the income from the proposed business are the members and not the institution. On that reasoning the Appellate Authority held that starting of the proposed business cannot be said to be for the purposes of the institution and that the claim will not fall under S.11(7) and accordingly set aside the order of eviction and dismissed the rent control petition.