T V SADASIVAN CHETTIAR Vs. RAJENDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision filed under Section 20 of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short), the petitioner/landlord who is the manager of the Kanyaka Parameswari Devaswom, Arakurussi, Mannarkad, challenges the judgment dt. 22.12.1999 of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Palakkad, dismissing the Rent Control Petition for eviction.

(2.) Since the provisions of the Act had not been extended to the area in question, the petitioner/Devaswom had originally filed a suit for eviction as O.S. No. 641/1966 before the Munsiff s Court, Perinthalmanna. The said suit was decreed and confirmed in appeal filed as A.S. No. 47/1975 before the District Court, Palakkad, as per Ext.A5 judgment dt. 19.12.1975 and further confirmed in second appeal by this Court in S.A. No. 290/1975 as per Ext.A19 judgment dt. 13.11.1978. In the meanwhile, the Act was extended to the area in question and therefore this Court had affirmed the decision of the lower appellate Court to the effect that the plaintiff/Devaswom would be entitled to actual possession only on making out a ground for eviction under Section 11 of the Act. Accordingly, the petitioner Devaswom filed R.C.P. No. 3/1991 before the Rent Control Court, Mannarkad.

(3.) Eviction of the four respondents to the Rent Control Petition was sought on the ground of bona fide own occupation under Section 11(3), sub-letting under Section 11(4)(i), destructive user under Section 11 (4)(ii), tenants having acquired possession of other alternative building under Section 11 (4)(iii), reconstruction under Section 11 (4)(iv) and additional accommodation under Section 11 (8) of the Act. The Rent Control Court, after hearing both sides, framed five points for consideration and they consisted of only three grounds for eviction viz., bona fide own occupation under Section 11 (3), sub-letting under Section 11 (4)(i) and destructive user of the premises by the tenant under Section 11 (4)(ii) of the Act. During the pendency of the Rent Control Petition, the 1st respondent died and his widow and children were impleaded as supplemental respondents 5 to 11 as per the order passed in I.A. No. 240/1992. After trial, the Rent Control Court as per order dt. 11.6.1996 disallowed eviction claimed under Section 11 (4)(ii) of the Act, but ordered eviction on the other two grounds, after holding that the tenant is not entitled to the protection of the second proviso to Section 11 (3) of the Act. The subletting, which was found, was by the 1st respondent in favour of respondents 2 to 4 who are the children of the deceased brother of the 1st respondent.