AMMINI Vs. AMMU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Landlord filed eviction petition under S.11(2) and 11(8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The Rent Controller allowed the petition under S.11(2) and rejected the claim under S.11(8) of the Act. Tenant filed R.C.A. 52/77 challenging the findings against him and the landlord filed R.C.A. 66/77 challenging the finding under S.11(8). Appellate authority dismissed R.C.A. 52/77 and allowed R.C.A. 66/77. Tenant filed R.C.R.P 41/77 against the order in R.C.A. 66/77. Pending the revision, tenant and landlord died and their respective legal representatives have been impleaded.

(2.) The contention of the revision petitioners is that the claim under S.11(8) cannot be allowed as the building in their possession is separate from the building in the possession of the respondents. There is no force in the above contention as the tenant did not have such a case in his counter statement. In Ext. A2 notice it is stated that the tenant is in possession of the lean-to portion of the main building. In the reply notice Ext. A4 there is no denial of the above assertion. Revision petitioners and their predecessor did not produce any documentary evidence or oral evidence to show that the building in their possession is entirely separate from the building in the possession of the landlord. In para 1 of the petition, it is clearly stated that the building in the possession of the tenant is a portion of the main building. The description of the building in the schedule to the petition also makes the position sufficiently clear that the premises in the possession of the tenant is only a lean-to of the main building. In para 3 of the counter there is implied admission that the premises in the possession of the tenant is a lean-to. There is crystal clear evidence to hold that the building in the possession of the tenant is only a portion of the main building. In view of the above position the petition is perfectly maintainable under S.11(8) of the Act.

(3.) There is clear and unassailable evidence in the case to show that the respondents (landlords) require the building for additional accommodation. P.W. 1's evidence would show that he has his wife and five children and they are residing with him in the building. He also stated that his sister's son is residing with him and that be experiences lack of space in the building. P.W. 1 stated that he has no other building. Admittedly, apart from the landlord, his wife and five children are occupying the premises bearing No. 324/III of Ayyanthole Panchayat. P.W.1's evidence would show that one of his sons is married and his daughter inlaw is also residing with him. He deposed that another son is about to get married. P.W. 1's evidence in this regard is not even attempted to be shattered in cross examination. Evidence of P.W. 1 sufficiently establishes that there are only three rooms including the kitchen in his occupation. The appellate authority has rightly held that it is only reasonable that the son of the landlord who is already married and another son who is about to be married need separate rooms to live peacefully with their better halves and that will necessarily require additional accommodation. The above finding has been rightly affirmed by the learned District Judge. Counsel for the revision petitioners could not point out any factor or circumstance to persuade me to come to a different finding from that of the appellate authority as well as the District Judge.