SOMAKUMAR S/O. SOMARAJAN, MERCHANT AND HAREENDRAN S/O. SADANANDAN PILLAI Vs. NAZAR S/O. ALIYARKUNJU, COMPANY EMPLOYEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenants are the revision petitioners. The landlord is the respondent. The landlord moved the Rent Controller, claiming eviction of the tenants under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The landlord owned about 25 cents of land. It is bounded on two sides by roads. On the northern side is the national highway and on the southern side, the palace road. A line building consisting of five rooms is covering the entire southern boundary of the landlord's plot. The said building abut the palace road, as stated earlier. Out of the five rooms, four belonged to the landlord. He moved and obtained building permit for construction of a large commercial complex in the said plot. As per the approved plan attached to the building permit, the line building owned by him has to be demolished, so that there is access from the palace road and area is available for parking vehicles. After obtaining the permit the landlord started construction and simultaneously he filed the Rent Control Petition to evict the four tenants occupying his rooms. Out of the five rooms, one belongs to a third party. During the pendency of the rent control proceedings, two of the tenants surrendered the premises in their possession.

(2.) THE petitioners herein alone contested the matter. The need projected was to get the tenanted rooms and demolish them for the above mentioned purpose. Thus, the petition was laid under Section 11(3). The tenants contended that the building has got sufficient parking area and also access from the northern side from the national highway. Therefore, the need projected is without any bona fides. They also contended that since one of the rooms belongs to a third party, it is not possible to demolish the entire building. Further, they denied the claim made under Section 11(2)(b). Apart from the above grounds, an objection to the maintainability of the Rent Control Petition was also raised. According to them, the landlord should have filed four separate Rent Control Petitions. The learned Counsel for the landlord pointed out that there was no such specific contention raised in the written objection, except the bald statement that the R.C.P is not maintainable. Whatever be that, the Rent Controller considered the point and held the same in favour of the landlord. The claim under Section 11(2)(b) was rejected and the prayer under Section 11(3) was allowed. The tenants appealed. During the pendency of the rent control proceedings, two of the rooms, which were surrendered by the tenants, were demolished and access was provided to the said building from the palace road also. So, they pointed out that the need of the landlord is already satisfied. The contentions raised before the Rent Controller were also reiterated before the appellate authority. The appellate authority affirmed the finding under Section 11(3). Hence this revision.

(3.) THE second point urged by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioners was concerning the bona fides of the claim of the landlord. Under the said ground, the learned Counsel raised three points. Firstly, it is submitted that even without the area covered by the tenanted premises, the landlord has got sufficient parking space. Secondly, it is pointed out that though from the approved building plan it would appear that the entire building on the southern side has to be demolished, the same cannot be demolished, as a portion of the same belongs to a third party. Lastly, it is pointed out that during the pendency of the rent control proceedings two of the rooms were surrendered and they were demolished, providing access to the road on the southern side. So, the need of the landlord stood satisfied substantially, it is submitted.