JACOB Vs. THOMAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is by the landlord, who urged the ground available under Sections 11(3) and 11(4)(iii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') to evict the tenant. The Rent Controller allowed eviction only under latter count and rejected on the former part. In appeal by the tenant and cross-objection by the landlord the eviction ordered under Section 11(4)(iii) of the Act was reversed and the order on the other grounds was sustained. Therefore, this revision petition by the landlord.

(2.) It is contended that the bonafides urged by the landlord has been concurrently found by the Authorities below. But the tenant was given the benefit in terms of the first Proviso to Section 11(3) of (sic) Act as it was found that a building owned by the landlord with Number 173 was in his (sic) at the material point of time. It is (sic) that this finding entered by the Rent Controller and confirmed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority is solely on the basis of Ext. X1 series, the extract of Assessment Register kept by the Local Authority in respect of building No. 173 referred to above. The substantial objection that the tenant had taken to resist the eviction under Section 1(3) of the Act was that the landlord was having four shop rooms in his ownership and possession. But during evidence, it has come out that three rooms out of the said four rooms on the first floor of the building had been in the occupation of tenants. As regards the other room bearing No. 173, the landlord introduced in evidence Exts.A2 and A6 series. Ext. A2 is the tenant agreement executed in favour of the predecessor in interest of the landlord by ne Haridasan, the tenant in room No. 173. Ext. A6 series contained counterfoils of the receipt issued by the landlord on payment of rent by the said Haridasan. Therefore, according to the landlord, he did not adduce any evidence as these were sufficient proof to show that building No. 173 was in occupation of a tenant. It was only after the closure of his evidence and during the examination of the tenant that Ext.X1 series had been introduced in evidence. Ext.Xl series revealed that all the three rooms out of the four rooms on the first floor were occupied by the tenants. But room No. 173 mentioned in Ext.X1 series was shown as vacant. Thereafter, the landlord was not given at opportunity to explain that document and to rebut the presumption that may arise out of Ext.X1 series, it is contended. Therefore, it is submitted that the finding that the tenant is entitled to the benefit of the first proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act depending only on the presumption available interms of Ext.X1 official documents is unsustainable.

(3.) Coming to the ground available under Section 11(4)(iii) of the Act, it is submitted that the Commission report Ext.C1 categorically revealed that the tenanted premises had an area of 6 x 4 meters whereas the other shop room admittedly in the possession of a tenant where the tenant is conducting the same type of business was having a verandha of 6.8 x 2.5 meters, a room of 5.9 x 6.8 meters, a corridor of 4.9 x 1.85 meters and yet another room of 8.9 x 6.45 meters with shutters to the other side also. The business in both the premises are in textiles. The requirement of the tenant meted out of the tenanted premises can be met reasonably and sufficiently by these rooms of higher dimensions, it is submitted. In the light of this categoric report by the Commissioner, which is no way objected, the Appellate Authority ought not to have reversed the finding arrived at by the Rent Controller under Section 11(4)(iii) of the Act, it is further submitted. So the reasoning adopted by the Rent Controller is more justified, the counsel contends.