ANTONY JOSEPH Vs. VAREETHU FRANCIS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ applicant has been thwarted in his attempt to get possession of part of the building that he rented out to the respondents. I use the word 'building' here in its ordinary sense without any reference to the definition of the term contained in S. 2 (1) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and rent Control) Act, 1959. This 'building' consists of three rooms. THE writ applicant is in possession of one of those rooms. He had rented out one room to the first respondent and had also rented out the remaining one to a third party. THE application for eviction was based on S. 11 (8) of the above Act which reads as follows: "a landlord who is occupying only a part of a building may, apply to the Rent Control Court for an order directing any tenant occupying the whole or any portion of the remaining part of the building to put the landlord in possession thereof, if he requires additional accommodation for his personal use. "

(2.) I must also refer to the provisos which would apply to this sub-section. These provisos are found after subjection (10) of S. 11 and they read as follows: "provided that, in the case of an application under sub-section (8), the Rent Control Court shall reject the application if it is satisfied that the hardship which may be caused to the tenant by granting it without weigh the advantage to the landlord: Provided further that the Rent Control Court may, give the tenant a reasonable time for putting the landlord in possession of the building and may extend such time so as not to exceed three months in the aggregate. "

(3.) I therefore hold that the application moved by the writ applicant must be considered with reference to the provisions in S. 11 (8)of the Act.