AYANIKKATTU UNNIRAJA Vs. K.P. GURUDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed by the tenants of a building wherein they are conducting a printing press, aggrieved by the order of eviction passed under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short 'the Act'), which stands confirmed by the Appellate Authority. Mainly it is contended that the eviction petition is hit by Section 15 of the Act, in the light of the fact that an earlier Rent Control Petition filed as R.C.P.No.70/2007 on the ground of bonafide need, viz. for his son to start a bio-technology unit, has been dismissed which stands confirmed by the Appellate Authority in appeal and by this Curt in revision.

(2.) At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri P.A. Harish submitted that both the authorities have found the bonafide need overlooking the provisions under Section 15 of the Act, by relying upon the observations made by this Court in the earlier round of litigation in R.C.R. No.205/2011, whereby permission has been granted to the landlord to institute a fresh Rent Control Petition invoking the ground under Section 11 (3) of the Act. With regard to the same, learned counsel mainly contended that the revision petition was dismissed in-limine confirming the order passed by the Appellate Authority in R.C.A. No.105/2008. Therefore, that portion of the order passed by this Court granting permission cannot be sustained. The petitioners herein were not issued a notice in the proceedings and therefore also those observations will not bind them.

(3.) We will therefore go into the skeletal facts required for the disposal of this revision petition. The landlord seeks eviction on the ground of bonafide need under Section 11(3) of the Act, viz. for starting a Bio- technology unit for the purpose of his son Shri Radhakrishnan. In the present petition for eviction filed as R.C.P.No.83/2011 in para 7 it has been averred that on an earlier occasion the landlord had filed R.C.P.No.70/2007 seeking eviction under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act but the plea under Section 11(3) was rejected. This has been confirmed in appeal filed as R.C.A. No.105/2008. In para 9 it is averred that this Court in R.C.R.No.205/2011 has permitted the landlord to file a fresh rent control petition within one month and accordingly the petition is filed. In para 10 it is stated that the requirement is to start a Bio-technology unit for which space, viz. 1000 sq. ft. is required; 500 sq. ft. for the production unit and 500 sq. ft. for office complex. In para 11 it is averred that the son is now conducting an I.T. Consulting business in the name and style of 'Web Namaste' in a room in the building having 500 sq. ft. area, which is on a temporary basis and once eviction is ordered, it is proposed to use the said room as office of the Bio-technology unit and the petition schedule room will be utilised for the purpose of Incubation, Research and Production unit. It is averred in para 12 that for the purpose of starting the Bio-technology unit the petition schedule rooms are to be vacated. In para 13 it is averred that on 26.2.2007 a notice was issued to the tenants seeking eviction on the said ground which was produced in R.C.P.No.70/2007 and the reply notice has also been produced therein. It is also stated that the cause of action has arisen from the date of issuance of notice dated 26.2.2007, on 7.3.2007 the date of reply notice and from 8.6.2011, the date of the order of this Court in R.C.R.No.205/2011.