THAIPARAMBATH ABDUL GANI Vs. M.P. JAMEELA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenants are in revision against the common judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority in RCA No. 150 of 2010, 151 of 2010, 152 of 2010, 153 of 2010, 154 of 2010 and 155 of 2010. The common respondent in these revision petitions is the landlady. Originally, the building in question belonged to the husband of the respondent landlady. He had filed RCP Nos. 80 of 2007, 143 of 2007,144 of 2007, 145 of 2007, 164 of 2007 and 165 of 2007 before the Rent Control Court, Thalassery seeking orders of eviction against the respective tenants under Sec. 11(4) (iv) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). During the pendency of the Rent Control Appeals, the original landlord passed away. Thereupon, the respondent has got herself impleaded as the sole legal representative.

(2.) The tenanted premises in all these revisions form part of a single building and are residential quarters, except the shop room in RCP. No. 80 of 2007 from which RCP No. 209 of 2015 is filed. From the said premises, the tenant is conducting a business in Cotton mattresses and other accessories. According to the landlord, the building is old and dilapidated and requires reconstruction. There are two buildings in the same plot, one on the road side and the other behind the building that abuts the road. The landlord has sought eviction from the building that is behind. The eviction of the tenant in RCP No. 80 of 2007 has been sought for the purpose of providing a sufficiently wide passage to the proposed construction behind. All the tenants resisted the claim of the landlord. According to the tenants, the building was not old or dilapidated as contended by the landlord. The same was structurally sound and would continue to be habitable, for a number of years more, with proper repairs. It was further contended that, the landlord did not possess a plan and licence or the ability to rebuild as required by Sec. 11(4)(iv) of the Act. The Rent Control Court tried the case on the above pleading and held that the landlord had not succeeded in numbering ground under Sec. 11(4)(iv). Therefore, all the Rent Control Petitions were dismissed. The landlord carried the matter in appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority on a reappreciation of the evidence on record found that, the Rent Control Court had seriously erred in dismissing the Rent Control Petitions. According to the Appellate Authority, the landlord has established the ground under Sec. 11(4)(iv). Accordingly, eviction has been ordered. Directions have also been issued to complete the proposed construction within a period of one year and to put the tenants in possession of the portions of the reconstructed building, thereafter. The tenants who are before us in these revisions challenge the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority.

(3.) The evidence in the case consists of Exhibits A1 to A19 documents and the evidence of PW1 on the side of the landlord. On the side of the tenants, Exhibits B1 to B4 documents have been marked and RWs to 6 examined as witnesses. Exhibits C1 and C2 Commission Reports and Plans are marked as Court Exhibits and the Advocate Commissioner has been examined as CW1.