BALAGANGADHARA MENON Vs. T V PETER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These revisions by the common landlord arise out of two separate petitions RCP. No. 79 of 1978 and RCP. No. 85/78 respectively on the file of the Rent Controller, Ernakulam. The petitions sought eviction of the respective respondents, who are tenants of two adjacent buildings under S.11(2)(b) and (4)(iv) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act on the grounds that they were in arrears of rent, that the buildings needed reconstruction and that the petitioner required bona fide to reconstruct them. The Rent Controller disallowed eviction on the former ground as the rent was not in arrears. He however upheld the latter ground under S.11(4)(iv) and directed the respondents to put the petitioner in possession of the buildings within one month with a default clause that on their failure be could recover possession through court. The petitioner was ordered to reconstruct the buildings within six months from the date of recovery of possession and the respondents were given the first option to get the reconstructed buildings allotted to them with liability to pay fair rent. The orders were confirmed on appeals by the Subordinate Judge, Ernakulam who is the Appellate Authority. However on revisions taken by the respondents the IInd Additional District Judge, Ernakulam reversed the orders and dismissed the petitions. The petitioner seeks to set aside decisions of the Additional District Judge.

(2.) Although the proceedings originated in separate petitions and were the subject of separate orders by the Appellate Authority and revisional Court it is better to deal with the revisions by a common Judgment as the same questions fall to be decided on substantially the same type of evidence.

(3.) The two buildings are adjacent to one another and stand on the western side of the Mahatma Gandhi Road, Ernakulam near the Kavitha Theatre and the Central Bank. The buildings were constructed in 1958. The buildings in CRP. 4140 was let in 1970 and the buildings in CRP. 4141 was let in 1971. The respondents are carrying on business in the two buildings. The petitioners alleged that the buildings are old and dilapidated, that they required reconstruction, that he intended bona fide to reconstruct them and that he had the means to do so. He also stated that the development of the area which was a very important place in the town also justified the reconstruction of the buildings. The respondents resisted the prayer contending that the buildings are not old or dilapidated, that they did not require reconstruction and that the petitioner had no means to reconstruct them.