ORIENTAL TRADING COMPANY Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a tenant's petition for setting aside Ext. P4 order dated 22-10-1993 in E. P. No. 80 of 1987 arising out of R. C. P. No. 67 of 1965 on the file of the Munsiff s Court, Ernakular And Ext. P5 order dated 29-10-1993 in R. C. R. P. No. 3 of 1993 on the file of the District Court, ernakulam by which the second petitioner has been directed to surrender the premises in question to the first respondent in pursuance of an order for eviction, passed under S. 11 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act (for short the act ).

(2.) THE first petitioner is a firm and the second petitioner is the managing partner of that firm. THE father of the second petitioner, as the managing partner of the firm, took a shop room on lease under the erstwhile Bank of Cochin Ltd. THE said bank filed R. C. P. No. 67 of 1965 in the Rent Control Court, Ernakulam seeking recovery of the shop room on the allegation that it is required for additional accommodation under S. 11 (8)of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act. THE Rent Controller dismissed the petition. But, on appeal, the prayer was allowed and an order for eviction was passed in R. C. A. No. 21 of 1968. THE appellate judgment was set aside in revision in R. C. R. P. No. 6 of 1969 by the Additional District Judge, ernakulam. In the second revision filed by the Bank as C. R. P. No. 1319 of 1972, this Court, by Ext. P1 order dated 6-4-1973, set aside the order of the first revisional court and an order of eviction was passed. But, before the order for eviction was executed the Bank of Cochin Limited was amalgamated with the State bank of India (1st Respondent herein) under S. 45 of the Banking Regulations act. Pursuant to these proceedings, the Bank of Cochin Limited ceased to exist on 26-8-1985 and all its assets and liabilities stood transferred to the State bank of India. On 10-8-1987, the State Bank of India filed an execution petition for eviction of the petitioners from the said premises. After the receipt of the notice, the father of the 2nd petitioner who was the managing partner of the firm died. THE second petitioner was therefore impleaded as the legal heir of the deceased managing partner of the firm. He resisted the execution petition by contending that the first respondent is not entitled to execute the order of eviction which was obtained by the Bank of Cochin Ltd. for its personal use. By Ext. P4 order, the learned Munsiff overruled the objections and directed for eviction of the petitioners. By Ext. P5 order in r. C. R. P. No. 3 of 1993, the learned 1 st Additional District Court confirmed the order of the learned Munsiff.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner's contention is that the first respondent, as a transferee of the premises in question, has no right to execute the decree unless his bonafide need for occupation of the premises is proved. It is a special Act and a tenant thereunder is protected from eviction under untenable grounds/a decree for eviction obtained by a transferor on the ground of personal need would not entitle a transferee-landlord to put it into execution. On the other hand the contention of the learned counsel for the 1st respondent is that the defence of want of bona fide requirement by the landlord was available only to the deceased statutory tenant, namely, the father of the second petitioner -. Such a plea is not available to his legal representative.