K T SREELATHA NAMBIAR Vs. P V RAJEEVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These rent control revisions are filed by the landlady against common judgment in R.C.A.Nos.43, 47, 48, 49, 50 and 51 of 2013 of the Rent Control Appellate Authority/Additional District Judge-I, Thalassery. The revision petitioner had preferred R.C.P.Nos.13, 12, 14, 15, 16 & 56 of 2011 before the Rent Control Court seeking eviction of respective tenants under Sections 11(3) and 11(4)(iv) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act 2 of 1965'). The Rent Control Petitions were tried together and the petitions were allowed on both the grounds. In appeals preferred by the respective tenants, by a common judgment dated 13.02.2015, the Rent Control Appellate Authority, reversed the order of eviction. Hence these revision petitions. Since the issues raised are common, parties are referred to herein as they are arrayed in R.C.R.No.136 of 2015.

(2.) In the rent control petitions, the contention of the petitioner/landlady was that the petition schedule building belonged to Sreedevi Amma and she leased out the premises to the respondents in the Rent Control Petitions on monthly rent. Sreedevi Amma died and the right of Sreedevi Amma devolved upon the revision petitioner as per a registered Will. After the death of Sreedevi Amma, the respondents in these rent control petitions attorned the tenancy in favour of the revision petitioner. The petition schedule building is old and dilapidated. The petitioner intends to construct a residential cum commercial complex in the place of the existing building and a plan for the proposed construction is approved by the Municipality. The husband of the petitioner is now working as Vice President of ITC at Calcutta. He intends to retire from service, settle down at Thalassery and start professional consultancy services and coaching centre for Chartered Accountancy students. So, the existing old building has to be demolished and a new residential cum commercial building has to be constructed in its place to suit the needs of the husband of the revision petitioner. The 2nd floor of the proposed building is to be used for residential purpose and the 1st floor is to be used as office room, room for staff, room for conducting classes and room for visitors. The petitioner needs to demolish the existing building and construct a new building to suit the bona fide need of the husband of the petitioner. There are other rooms available in the locality for shifting the business now conducted by the respondents in the petition schedule shop rooms. Moreover, the respondents in these RCPs are having possession of other rooms for doing the business now conducted in the petition schedule premises. On these pleadings, eviction was sought under Sections 11(3) and 11 (4)(iv) of Act 2 of 1965.

(3.) The respondents admitted the title and tenancy. They contended that there is no serious damage to the existing building and there is no need for construction of a new building. The existing building is only 35 years old. A portion of the existing building was acquired by the Government for widening of the road. The petitioner had obtained the plan approved by the Municipality before acquisition proceedings. As per the present Building Rules, no residential building or commercial complex could be constructed at the place where the present building is situated after leaving the road margin. No vacant rooms are available in the locality for shifting the business now conducted in the petition schedule building. The respondents are depending upon the income derived from the business conducted in the petition schedule premises. The petitioner has got other buildings of her own and it could be used for the proposed purpose. The petitioner can construct the proposed building in that area without demolishing the existing building. There is no intention for the husband of the petitioner to come over to Thalassery and settle down. He is getting pension and his children are well off. So, there is no need for starting a professional consultancy of his own. The intention of the petitioner is to evict the respondents and to sell the property to strangers. So, the petitioner is not entitled to get any order of eviction as claimed by her.