WELFARE STATIONERY Vs. SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Can South Indian Bank Ltd., which is a Scheduled Bank, be one among "other public institutions" described in S. 11(7) of the of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 South Indian Bank Ltd., Thrissur, who is the landlord, had approached the Rent Control Court, Thrissur through R.C.P. No. 29 of 1994, seeking an order directing the tenants, who are the petitioners herein, to put the landlord in possession of the scheduled room on the ground under Sections 11(2)(b), 11(7) and 11(8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The Rent Control Court considered the matter along with two other connected RCPs, and vide common order dated 30.3.2004, allowed the Rent Control Petitions on the grounds under Sections 11(7) and 11(8) of the Act. Aggrieved by the said order, the tenants preferred R.C.A. No. 49 of 2004 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thrissur. Vide common judgment dated 30.8.2010, the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority has concurred with the findings rendered by the Rent Control Court and dismissed the R.C.A. and the two other connected R.C.As., and hence the present Rent Control Revision.

(2.) The petition scheduled room, which forms part of the ground floor of the South Indian Bank building, belongs to the landlord. The same was rented out to the tenants on a monthly rent of Rs. 60/-. Even after the period of lease, the tenants continued to be in possession of the room as per the same terms and conditions. According to the landlord, the Main Branch of the Bank is functioning in the other floors of the building. Due to the increase in the business transactions and since new avenues have been opened in the banking industry, with the existing facilities available, the Bank finds it extremely difficult to carry on its normal activities for want of space. The landlord is in dire need of additional accommodation and the ground floor which includes the petition scheduled room, is required for Bank's bona fide need for expansion of the Main Branch. On getting vacant possession of the ground floor including the petition scheduled room, the landlord will be able to, effectively and conveniently discharge its functions and duties to the public by adding the room to its present space available. The hardships, if any, that may be caused to the tenants in case of an eviction will never outweigh the advantages to the landlord.

(3.) The landlord has been making repeated demands to the tenants to vacate the premises. The notice issued on 10.3.1990, by calling upon the tenants to vacate the premises, could only invite a reply from the tenants, in which untenable contentions have been resorted to. The lawyer's notice dated 1.7.1991 caused to be issued to the tenants also could only invite a reply in which false and vexatious contentions were resorted to. According to the landlord, anticipating an amicable settlement in the matter, the landlord did not take any hasty steps. As there was no positive response, the landlord again caused to issue lawyer's notice dated 25.11.1993 to the tenants thereby calling upon them to surrender vacant possession of the premises with arrears of rent. On receipt of the said notice, the tenants issued a reply thereby setting forth false and untenable contentions. The case of the landlord is that the landlord is a banking institution registered under the Banking Regulation Act and is a public institution intended for serving the public.