ARUNACHALAM Vs. SREENIVASA REDDIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision petition filed by the landlord in proceedings under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, the question that arises is whether the building is in such a condition that it needs reconstruction and whether the landlord is entitled to get eviction on that ground as he is said to bona fide require the same for reconstruction. The building concerned which is in the occupation of the respondent on a monthly rent of Rs. 200 is situated in an important locality in the Quilon Town The building which was constructed in 1968 admittedly continues to be a building in good condition and it is not disputed that there is no question of that building being in a physically bad condition as to require reconstruction. The landlord's petition was based on the ground that with the developing nature of the locality with various kinds of commercial activities springing up around the land and the neighbourhood and new buildings coming up, the schedule building has become outmoded. It was alleged that if the petitioner keeps the plot without making any change in the existing structures, that will not give best utility value of the same. He further stated that he intends to put up an ultra modern three storeyed building and has applied to the municipality for necessary licence and he has the necessary means to do so. On these grounds he pleaded that eviction of the tenant is necessary to put the premises into best use. The respondent questioned the bona fides of the landlord. He pointed out that the building is situated in a locality which has not undergone any substantial change for the last so many years and that the building does not require any reconstruction. According to him the eviction petition was the result of a refusal to pay en-chanced rent claimed by the landlord.

(2.) The Rent Control Court dismissed the application. It would appear that a Commission was taken out in the case. The Commissioner was examined as Dw.2. In his report the Commissioner has stated that the disputed building i-, a pucca Juncture and in a fine condition and be could not see any damage in the portion kept by the tenant or by the landlord himself. The Rent Control Court said that from the report it would appear that the building is not a misfit in the locality. There are older one-storeyed buildings in the locality. The Rent Control Court said: -

(3.) The appellate authority confirmed the decision of the Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal. There it referred to relevant decisions on the matter and came to the conclusion that it could not be found that the building in such a condition requires reconstruction and the landlord is entitled to get an order for eviction under S.11(4)(iv) of the Lease and Rent Control Act. The matter went up to the District Court in revision under S.20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act The District Court found that the fact that the landlord has got necessary financial resources to construct an ultra modern three-storeyed building cannot be disputed It also found that he has got the necessary plan requisite for the construction of the building. But the court said that while considering the necessity for reconstruction the present condition of the building is also an important factor for consideration especially in this case where the same tenant was evicted on the same ground only in 1958 and the present petition is filed in 1972 within 14 years. The court proceeded to state: