JANAKI BALAKRISHNAN Vs. I.K. THRIPU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE Rent Control Revisions are filed by the landlords aggrieved by the dismissal of the petition for eviction filed under Section 11(8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(2.) THE landlords approached the Rent Control Court alleging that they are in occupation of the upstair portion of the tenanted premises, in which, they are conducting business in sanitary wares, electrical goods and plumbing materials and also conducting a tailoring unit. It is pleaded in the Rent Control Petition that the second petitioner is unemployed and he wants to start a business in making bend pipes and in the sale of the same. The requirement espoused in the Rent Control Petition is specifically under Section 11(8) of the Act. This is because the landlords had approached the Rent Control Court earlier, seeking for eviction of the tenant under Section 11(3) of the Act. The above proceedings attained finality in R.C.R. Nos. 340 and 341 of 2005 before this Court. In the above Rent Control Revisions, this Court found that the prayer for eviction under Section 11(3) is not maintainable, based on the pleadings and evidence. This Court took the view that the requirement projected is to have an additional accommodation in view of the fact that the landlords are already in occupation of a part of the building. The claim under Section 11(3) of the Act was thus rejected in view of the fact that the pleadings and evidence would indicate that only a claim under Section 11(8) of the Act would be maintainable. The landlords in the above proceedings sought for a remand order to carry out amendment in the pleadings so as to substantiate their claim under Section 11(8) of the Act. However, this Court declined their request as it would cause prejudice to the parties. Thereafter, the landlords filed the present Rent Control Petition with the averments as above.

(3.) THE Rent Control Appellate Authority also appreciated the pleadings and evidence and found that the additional accommodation projected in the Rent Control Petition and also revealed from the evidence are totally different and the landlords failed to establish their occupation of the tenanted premises.