ANANDAN Vs. MADATHIL PATHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent landlady filed R.C.P. No. 94/2006 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Vadakara, seeking eviction of the petitioner under Secs. 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Rent Control Act. The Rent Control Court dismissed the petition. That order was challenged by the landlady in R.C.A. No. 35/2008 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Vadakara. The Rent Control Appellate Authority, by its judgment dated 6.8.2011, set aside the order of the Rent Control Court and allowed eviction under Sec. 11(3) of the Act. This order was challenged by the tenant before this Court in R.C. Rev. No. 361/2011. This Court by order dated 18th March, 2013, disposed of the revision. In this order, the bona fide need found by the Appellate Authority was confirmed. But the case was remanded to the Appellate Authority for considering the subsequent events pleaded by the tenant and its impact on the first proviso to Sec. 11(3). The relevant findings of this Court are contained in paragraphs 12 and 13 of the order, which read thus:

(2.) We heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent and have considered the submissions made.

(3.) The main contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner was that after having found that the four rooms came into the possession of the landlady during the pendency of the proceedings, the benefit of the first proviso to Sec. 11(3) was denied to the tenant only for the reason that the Appellate Authority accepted the potential of the other rooms to fetch a higher rent as a special reason. This, according to the learned Senior Counsel, is against the law laid down by this Court in Janatha Drugs v. Maithri Construction and others,2007 4 KerLT 625. Therefore, learned Senior Counsel contended that the order passed by the Appellate Authority deserves to be set aside. However, this contention of the learned counsel was contradicted by the learned counsel for the respondent landlady referring to judgment in Valsan v. Furtal, 2004 3 KerLT 1046. He also contended that the factual conclusion of the Appellate Authority that the landlady had affixed her signature on Exts.B5 and B6 was incorrect and that therefore the provisions of the Evidence Act relied on have no relevance. The counsel also submitted that the fact that the rooms referred to by the petitioner were too large for the landlord's requirement is certainly a special reason requiring to be relied on when the applicability of the first proviso to Sec. 11(3) is considered.