N. NARAYAN Vs. A. VASUDEVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant in a rent Control petition for eviction of a building is the revision petitioner. The landlord filed the petition for eviction under Section 11(3) and 11(8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Rent Control Court held that the petitioner is not entitled for eviction under both these sub-sections, and accordingly dismissed the petition. However, the Appellate Authority allowed eviction under both these sub-sections. The Revisional Court allowed eviction only under Section 11(3) of the Act. The tenant is challenging the order of the revisional Court in this Civil Revision Petition.

(2.) THE petition schedule building is one part of a building consisting of three residential units. The landlord was residing in his official quarters as Manager of Spencer and Company Ltd. When he was transferred to Coimbatore, he was directed to vacate the official quarters. Since the petitioner could not take his family to Coimbatore, and in view of the difficulties state in the petition, he wanted the eviction of the tenants in the entire building consisting of the three separate portions. The tenant contended that there are no grounds for evicting him. The other two portions of this building will be sufficient for the landlord. As stated above, the District Court has allowed eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act.

(3.) ACCORDING to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner the revisional Court ought to have taken cognizance of the subsequent event, namely, the landlord got vacant possession of a portion of the building in question. For that proposition the learned counsel places reliance on the decision reported in P. Venkateswarlu v. Motor and General Traders, 1975 R.C.R. 486 (SC) A.I.R. 1975 SC 1409. So also it was submitted that the conditions existing at the time of disposal of the eviction petition is to be taken note of. Accordingly the submission is the landlord ought to have amended the petition for eviction and confined his prayer to one for eviction under Section 11(8).