RADHA LEKSHMY Vs. INDIAN SAREE HOUSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that arises for consideration in this Rent Control Revision is whether a Rent Control Petition filed under Section 11(8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short, 'the Act') can be summarily rejected under Section 15 of the Act on the ground that the landlord did not press that ground in the earlier Rent Control Petition, in which Sections 11(3) and 11(8) were taken as the grounds for eviction.

(2.) The revision petitioners are the landlords of a building situated in Broadway, Ernakulam, in which the first respondent partnership runs a textile shop under the name and style 'Indian Saree House'. The learned counsel for the landlords submitted that the rent that is being paid by the tenant is only Rs. 250/- for an area of about 600 sq. ft. in a building situated in the heart of Ernakulam City. The landlords filed R.C.P.No.154 of 2000 before the Rent Control Court, Ernakulam under Sections 11(2)(b), 11(3), 11(4)(i), 11(4)(ii) and 11(8) of the Act.

(3.) At the time of hearing, landlords submitted that they were pursuing only Section 11(3) and not Section 11(8) of the Act. The Rent Control Court allowed the petition under Section 11(3) and rejected the petition on other grounds. The landlords as well as the tenants filed appeals before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority dismissed both the appeals. The tenant filed R.C.R.No.231 of 2005 before the High Court challenging the order and judgment of the authorities below under Section 11(3) of the Act. The said Rent Control Revision was disposed of by the judgment dated 12.6.2006. A contention was put forward by the tenants that the landlords having admitted that they are in occupation of a portion of the building, the ground under Section 11(3) would not be maintainable and eviction could be sought only under Section 11(8). That contention put forward by the tenants was accepted by this Court in the judgment, which is Indian Saree House v. Radhalakshmy, 2006 3 KerLT 129. The High Court thought, in the peculiar circumstances of the case, that the landlords should be permitted to withdraw the submission made before the Rent Control court that they were not pressing the ground under Section 11(8). After holding thus, the High Court considered the bonafides of the claim under Section 11(8) and it was held that the landlords have made out the bonafides to found a claim under Section 11(8). However, the authorities below had not considered the question of comparative hardship under the first proviso to Section 11 (10) of the Act, which is a mandatory requirement while disposing of an application under Section 11(8). Therefore, the High Court remanded the case to the Appellate Authority for the purpose of considering the limited question of comparative hardship under the first proviso to Section 11(8) of the Act.