N SAROJINI AMMA KIZHAKKE MURI SOORANADU VILLAGE Vs. NARAYANAN NAIR GOVINDA MANGALATHU HOUSE KONNAMANKARA MURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These four revision petitions are at the instance of a common landlady of a row of shop buildings. The respondents / tenants had given vacant possession of their respective buildings to the landlady pursuant to an order passed by the Rent Control Court in terms of a settlement entered into among them during the pendency of the eviction proceedings initiated by the landlady under S.11(4)(iv) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short 'the Act'). The landlady had agreed that the respondents / tenants would be put back in possession of the buildings on completion of reconstruction. The compromise was recorded before the Court below on September 9, 1998 and the buildings were surrendered by the respondents / tenants on December 30, 1998. The landlady had undertaken that the respondents / tenants would be put in possession of the reconstructed building on June 30, 1999.

(2.) Respondents / tenants had to approach the Rent Control Court again since the landlady had failed to honour her commitment. Though the buildings were demolished by the landlady, she had not made any attempt to construct a new building as undertaken by her. It was at that stage that the respondents / tenants had moved the Rent Control Court seeking its intervention as provided under the second and third proviso to S.11(4) (iv). Respondents / tenants prayed for a direction to the landlady to reconstruct the building in implementation of the order passed by the Court pursuant to the compromise. It was also prayed that appropriate penal action be taken against the landlady.

(3.) In response to the above prayer, it was contended by the landlady that subsequent to the compromise order, she had sought eviction of the respondents / tenants under S.11(3) of the Act for the bona fide own occupation of her son to start a business in those buildings. Her son had retired as Professor from the Devaswom Board College, Sasthamcotta in 1998 and there was no other building in her possession to accommodate her son. Unless and until a final adjudication had been made by the Rent Control Court on the above claim made by the landlady, respondents / tenants were not entitled to get the compromise order implemented.