LAKSHMI Vs. LABBAH KUNJU AMEER HAMSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The landlord is the petitioner in this revision. He filed R.C.P. No. 5 of 1996 under Sections 11(2)(b), 11(3), 11(4)(ii) and 11(4)(10) of Act 2 of 1965. Both the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority dismissed the application on all the grounds. Though there was no specific claim made under Section (4)(iv) of the Act, both the Rent Control Court as well as the Appellate Authority have proceeded on the basis that the claim for eviction was also made under that provision. Sections 11(3) and 11(4)(iv) are intended for different purposes. Whereas under Section 11(3) eviction is required for bonafide need of own occupation or for occupation by any member of the family depending on the landlord, Section 11(4)(iv) is intended in a case where the building requires reconstruction and the tenant gets a right to get an equivalent area in the reconstructed building. In this case, not only the landlord did not quote Section 11 (4)(iv) in the Rent Control Petition but he also did not offer either in the petition or in evidence any portion of the reconstructed building to the tenant. Therefore, this was a case where the courts below should have considered the question of bonafide need alone. But having considered the case of the landlord under Section 11(4)(iv) also we will advert to that aspect as well in this order. The material averments in the Rent Control Petition are as follows.

(2.) The tenancy commenced on 25-11-1980 at Rs. 600/- per month. There were earlier Rent Control Petitions on the ground of arrears of rent, the orders on which were got vacated by subsequent payment. The rent was increased to Rs. 25/- per day in 1984. From 1-1-1995 onwards, the rent was in arrears. The tenant has materially altered the nature and character of the building by filling soil in the rooms on the north and western sides of the building and reduced the height of the roof, removed the doors in the inner side of the rooms and refitted the same according to his wish and removed wooden doors and fitted glass panes. One of the petitioner's sons, Ramabhadran working in a Gulf Country is intending to return to India and commence a hotel business in the building that may be newly constructed after demolishing the existing building. For that purpose, he has no place of his own and he is depending on the petitioner for accommodation and the petitioner bonafide needs the same for his occupation. He has also stated that the condition of the building is such that it needs reconstruction. It is situated in an important locality. The petitioner has submitted a plan to the local authority and it will be produced as and when it is obtained. He has got the capacity to make such construction.

(3.) In the objections filed by the tenant all the averments in the Rent Control Petition are specifically denied. There is no arrears of rent and no material alterations made to the building. The bonafide need alleged is a cock and bull story. He has no such need. He is not depending on the father for the purpose of the building. The petitioner has another building in his possession in the very same town. The tenant is depending on the income from the petitioner building and there is no other building available for him to occupy.