KURIAN PHILIP Vs. MRS. MARY THOMAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the tenant against whom an order of eviction has been passed concurrently by the courts below under section 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short "the Act"). The parties are referred to as in the Rent Control Petition. According to the petitioners in the Rent Control Petition, they are the joint owners of 3.07 Ares of land in resurvey Nos.11/2, 11/6, 86/1 and 146/2 in Block No.69 of Kottayam Municipality and the petition schedule building is situated in the said land. The respondent has taken the petition schedule building on a monthly rent from 1977 onwards and the rent of the building is in arrears from and inclusive of the month of May 2006 onwards at the rate of Rs. 700/- per month. He has sublet and transferred the possession of the schedule building to a stranger contrary to the agreement without the consent and knowledge of the petitioners and the sub tenant is in exclusive possession of the building for valuable consideration. The petition schedule building is for more than 100 years old and it is in a dilapidated condition. However, it requires reconstruction and the petitioners are in need of the building to start an Academy of Fashion Technology, after demolition and reconstruction of the same. The petitioners and their cousins, who are adjoining land owners, have bona fide intention to construct a multi-storied building in the entire plots owned by them. So the petitioners along with the aforesaid cousins entered into an agreement to construct a multi-storied commercial building as a joint venture, after demolishing the building including the petition schedule building, in the entire plots owned by them. The petitioners are intending to start an Academy of Fashion Technology in the entire area allotted to them in the multi-storied building constructed as a joint venture. As per the agreement 32% of the built up area would be given to the petitioners. The petitioners have sufficient financial ability and means to start the said Academy. The 3rd petitioner is competent and efficient to manage the said Academy. Her daughter is studying for Fashion Technology. After the completion of her course, she will also join with the petitioners to conduct the Academy. They have no other building in Kottayam town to conduct the aforesaid academy. So also, it was averred that the respondent is not entitled to get protection under the proviso to section 11(3) of the Act. With the aforesaid pleadings they prayed for an order of eviction under section 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(4)(i) of the Act.

(2.) The respondent resisted the claim for eviction contending that there was no landlord-tenant relationship between the petitioners and the respondent and the need projected in the petition is a pretense for eviction only. More clearly, it was stated that he had no lease arrangement with any of the petitioners and there was no arrears of rent. He denied the allegation that he had sublet the building to a stranger for valuable consideration. According to him, the petition schedule building is stable, strong and well maintained by the respondent. Petitioners 2 and 4 are Doctors by profession and they have no bona fide intention to start the proposed Academy. The 3rd petitioner is neither competent nor educated to manage the affairs of the Academy as claimed by the petitioners. No multi-storied commercial building can be constructed in the petition scheduled premises. It is not a fit place to start an academic institution like Academy of Fashion Technology and there is little scope for such an Academy in Kottayam. The petitioners have many other buildings in the town, which could be used for starting such an academy, if they are really intending to start one. The petitioners have not obtained any sanction from the Municipality to construct a multi-storied building and not made any agreement to raise sufficient funds. Even if the petitioners intend to construct such a building, it is not necessary to demolish the existing building. Thus, he prayed for dismissal of the petition.

(3.) The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 to PW5, RW1 and RW2 and documentary evidence of Exts.A1 to A14, B1 to B14, C1 and C2. After considering the aforesaid evidence the Rent Control Court passed an order of eviction under section 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act. In appeal, the Appellate Authority also affirmed the findings of the Rent Control Court as such without any interference. Thus, the legality and propriety of the concurrent findings under section 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act are challenged in this revision.