AJITHKUMAR Vs. ASANARU PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision is directed against the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority No.II, Thiruvananthapuram, by the tenant raising the following questions regarding the application of Sec. 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1965, whether it is permissible for the landlord to change the purpose of the proposed need advanced under Sec. 11 (3) of the Act and whether it would take away the bona fides of the landlord, if it is found to be necessary in reference to the change of circumstance.

(2.) The factual situation of the case is that originally rent control proceedings were initiated by the landlord against the tenant raising a need for own occupation under Sec. 11(3) of the said Act. Initially, the claim under Sec. 11(3) was rejected by the Rent Control Court mainly on the ground that the nature of the need and the proposed purpose are not disclosed in the application and it was taken up in the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thiruvananthapuram, who, in turn, allowed the application under Ss. 11(3) and 11(2)(b) of the said Act. It was taken up before this Court and this Court remanded the matter back to the Rent Control Court so as to afford an opportunity to the landlord petitioner to raise additional pleadings under Sec. 11(3) of the said Act. Before the Rent Control Court, the petitioner did not disclose the nature of the need proposed. That was taken into account by this Court and felt that from the nature of the case it is proper to grant an opportunity to the petitioner to raise additional pleadings in the context of Sec. 11(3) of the said Act. It is thereafter that the Rent Control Court again considered the application and passed an order of eviction under Ss. 11(3) and 11(4)(iii) of the said Act. In Appeal, the order of eviction under Sec. 11(4)(iii) was vacated; but confirmed the order of eviction under Sec. 11(3), which is under challenge in this Revision.

(3.) The bone of contention between the parties is the lack of pleading in the Rent Control Petition as to the nature of the proposed business to be commenced by the landlord. Initially it was not disclosed in the petition. It was incorporated in the petition by way of an amendment pursuant to the order passed by this Court in R.C.R.No.365/2011, raising a need for commencing footwear business in the petition schedule building.