THAVOO Vs. JACOB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent-tenant in R. C. O. P. No 24/79 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Chavakkad is the petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition. The landlords of the petition schedule building sought recovery of the same under S.11 (2) and 11 (4) (iv) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter stated as the Act). The Rent" Control Court by its order dated 10.6.1980 allowed eviction under S.11(4) (iv) of the Act. On appeal by the tenant in R. C. A. No. 60/80 the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Trichur allowed the appeal and dismissed the application for recovery of the building by judgment dated 17. 6. 1982. The landlords took up the matter in revision before the District Court, Trichur in R.C.R.P. No. 76/82. The learned District Judge by order dated 28.2.1984 restored the order passed by the Rent Control Court and ordered eviction under S.11 (4) of the Act. The Revisional Court further directed:

(2.) . The short question that arises for consideration by this court is whether the petition schedule building is in such a condition that it needs reconstruction. According to the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, tenant the physical condition of the building is the only material fact that is to be gone into in deciding whether the building is in such a condition that it needs reconstruction. The report Ext. Cl filed by the Commissioner would go to show that the petition schedule building is structurally strong that it will continue for pretty long number of years and so the building needs no reconstruction. This argument of the learned counsel, I am afraid, cannot be countenanced. ((THELAW)) 2009 KLT INFOTECH VerDIS � Page 2 of 91986 KLT 66

(3.) . A different note was struck by M.P. Menon, J. in Thanka v. Narayani (1981 K.L.T. 502). In that decision he has observed: