POTTARATH KUNHAMMI Vs. VARIKKAPULAKKAL ABDULLAKUTTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Revisions were referred to the Full Bench stating that in the decision of the Division Bench in Indian Saree House v. Radhalakshmy, 2006 3 KerLT 129the binding judgment in Shaji Varghese v. Cherian, 1993 3 KerLT 133was not considered and that there is apparent conflict of views in the various decisions of this Court on the subject. The main conflict of views noticed by the Division Bench is on the question whether Sections 11(3) and 11(8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') are mutually exclusive. In Indian Saree House v. Radhalakshmy, 2006 3 KerLT 129and in S. Sivasubramonia Iyer v. S.H. Krishnaswamy, 1981 AIR(Ker) 57it was held that sub-sections (3) and (8) of Section 11 of the Act are mutually exclusive. In Shaji Varghese v. Cherian, 1993 3 KerLT 133and in Muhammed v. Abdul Rahiman,1983 KerLT 874it was held that sub-sections (3) and (8) of Section 11 are not mutually exclusive.

(2.) For the sake of convenience,' sub-sections (3) and (8) of Section 11 are extracted below:

(3.) The first proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act provides that the Rent Control Court shall not give any direction under sub-section (3) if the landlord has another building of his own in his possession in the same city, town or village except where the Rent Control Court is satisfied that for special reasons, in any particular case it will be just and proper to do so. The second proviso to Section 11(3) gives protection to the tenant. Even after holding that the bona fide need is established, the Rent Control Court shall not give any direction to the tenant to put the landlord in possession, if such tenant is depending for his livelihood mainly on the income derived from any trade or business carried on in such building and there is no other suitable building available in the locality for such person to carry on such trade or business. The third and fourth provisos to Section 11(3) contain certain other restrictions as well. The first proviso to sub-section (10) of Section 11 states that in the case of an application made under sub-section (8), the Rent Control Court shall reject the application if it is satisfied that the hardship which may be caused to the tenant by granting it will outweigh the advantage to the landlord. In view of sub-section (10) of Section 11, the landlord has to establish his bona fides in the case of a claim for eviction under sub-sections (3), (4), (7) or (8).