REMADEVI Vs. JANAKIAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Original Petition has come up before us on a reference made by a learned Single Judge. He doubted the correctness of the decision in Kesava Pillai v. Paulose, 1989 (2) KLT 416 . Therein, it was taken that even if licence for putting up a building in a particular area is not required from the local authority, the landlord who seeks recovery of the building under S.11(4)(iv) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, hereinafter referred to as "the Act", should produce a plan of the building proposed to be constructed. In the absence of a plan, it was held that Rent Control Court cannot direct tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building for the purpose of reconstruction.

(2.) The short facts necessary for the disposal of this Original Petition are as follows - Petitioner is the owner of a building situated within Kozhencherry Panchayat She leased it out to respondents 1 and 2 on a monthly rent of Rs. 25/-, as per a lease deed dt. 1.10.1974. The building is in a dilapidated condition. Consequently, she filed O. P. (BRC) 15/1976 before the Rent Control Court, Pathanamthitta for recovery of the same on the ground, among others, of re-construction under S.11(4)(iv) of the Act Respondents 1 and 2 disputed the claim of the petitioner, landlord, on the ground that she had no capacity to re-construct the building, that she had not produced in Court either the plan or estimate for the proposed new building and that she was not entitled of recover the same. Rent Control Court, by order dt. 30.10.1976, held that the building requires re-construction; that the petitioner's requirement for re-construction is bona fide; that petitioner has the ability to build; and that the proposal for re-construction was not a pretext for eviction. It also went into the question as to whether a plan and licence for re-construction of the building is required. Since the area fell within a Panchayat and Building Rules have not been extended to that area, Rent Control Court Came to the conclusion that the plan and licence are not required in the instant case. In this view, respondents 1 and 2 were directed to put the landlord in possession of the building and the petitioner to re-construct the building within six months. Respondents 1 and 2 took up the mater in appeal before the appellate authority, the Subordinate Judge, Pathanamthitta. All the contentions raised by respondents 1 and 2 were rejected and the appeal was dismissed, confirming the order passed by the Rent Control Court Thereupon respondents 1 and 2 filed revision petition before the District Court, Kollam under S.20 of the Act. Learned District Judge concurred with the finding arrived at by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority on the questions of bona fide requirement of re-construction; petitioner's ability to build; and that the proposal for reconstruction was not a pretext for eviction. Point that was considered by the Learned District Judge was whether a landlord who seeks eviction on the ground of reconstruction should have satisfied the Rent Control Court that he has a plan for re-construction. Since such a plan was not produced by the landlord, the learned District Judge went into the question as to whether the order for recovery of the building passed by the authorities below was sustainable. Learned District Judge held that point against the petitioner and set aside the findings arrived at by the authorities below and rejected the prayer of the landlord for recovery under S.11(4)(iv) of the Act. Hence this Original Petition.

(3.) For a proper understanding of the provision contained in S.11(4)(iv) of the Act, we read the same:-