JANAKIAMMA Vs. BHASKARAN NAMBIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These revision petitions are filed by the tenants. The landlord is the respondent in all these revision petitions. The landlord approached the Rent Control Court seeking eviction of the tenants. One of the common grounds on which eviction was sought is under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short, the "Act"). Though eviction was sought under other grounds as well against some of the tenants, that question does not arise for consideration in these revision petitions, as these revision petitions arise only from the order passed by the Appellate Authority reversing the finding rendered under Section 11(3) of the Act by the Rent Control Court.

(2.) The Rent Control Court dismissed the rent control petitions under Section 11(3) of the Act on finding that the need put forward by the landlord is for residence after reconstruction of the tenanted premises and since there are no pleadings in the rent control petitions regarding reconstruction, the landlord is not entitled for eviction. The Appellate Authority reversed the said finding and found that the claim under Section 11(3) of the Act is maintainable, even if the landlord wants to use the tenanted premises for residential purpose after reconstruction.

(3.) Challenging the order of eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act, Shri K. Ramachandran appearing for the revision petitioners-tenants submits that the need put forward by the landlord in the present rent control petitions was for the purpose of residence of the landlord along with his family members and, the landlord had raised the same need in the earlier rent control petitions, which was dismissed by Rent Control Court, the Appellate Court, and this Court in revision. Therefore, the eviction sought for the same relief, which was canvassed by the landlord in the earlier rent control petitions, is hit by Section 15 of the Act. It is also submitted that based on mere observation made by this Court while disposing the earlier civil revision petitions, namely, C.R.P. Nos. 1474, 1516, 1527 and 1564 of 1998, that the dismissal of the civil revision petitions would be without prejudice to the right of the landlord for filing fresh petition for eviction; the landlord cannot file an eviction petition on the same relief sought under Section 11(3) of the Act. It is also submitted that subsequent events relied on by the landlord was part of the cause of action for filing earlier rent control petitions on bona fide need. Therefore, the present rent control petitions, based on the cause of action available with him while filing the earlier rent control petitions, will not dilute the rigour of Section 15 of the Act. Learned counsel Shri K. Ramachandran also tried to make out a distinction between need, desire and luxury and submitted that, if at all petitions are maintainable for eviction under section 11(3) of the Act, the claim projected is nothing but luxury or desire. On the other hand, the learned counsel, Shri Rajit R. appearing for the landlord (respondent) would submit that circumstances necessitated by the present rent control petitions are due to the retirement of the wife of the petitioner, and the earlier petitions were filed by the landlord while she was in service. The courts below in the earlier round of litigation found that there was no bona fide need for the landlord to stay along with his family in the tenanted premises as his wife and their only son were employed at a distant place. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the landlord that due to retirement and old age they prefer to reside in the petition schedule tenanted premises, which is very near to the Guruvayoor Temple. According to the learned counsel Shri Rajit R. changed circumstances give fresh cause of action to the landlord for seeking eviction.