K K KRISHNAN Vs. M K VIJAYARAGHAVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition raises an interesting question regarding the interpretation of S.11(10) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The tenant is the revision petitioner and the landlord, the respondent. Eviction was sought on the grounds of arrears of rent and subletting. According to the landlord, the building was demised in 1947 on a rent of Rs. 330/-. Thereafter, the building was renovated and the tenant agreed to pay an enhanced rent of Rs. 410 per mensem. According to the landlord, the tenant has sublet portions of the building to one Ratnaswamy Reddiar and Netto after July, 1961.

(2.) The Rent Control Court ordered eviction under S.11(4)(i) of the Act on the ground of subletting. The tenant took the matter in appeal before the Appellate Authority as CMA. No. 69 of 1974. It was contended before the Appellate Authority that even if subletting was proved, the Rent Control Court should have recorded a finding that the claim of the landlord for eviction on that ground was bona fide. This argument is based on S.11(10) of the Act. Since this finding was absent, the order for eviction by the Rent Control Court was set aside by the appellate authority and the case was remanded to the Rent Control Court for fresh consideration. The landlord filed a revision before the District Court. The District Judge held that once the ground of subletting was proved, it has to be held that the claim of the landlord for eviction was bona fide. According to the District Judge, no separate finding regarding the bona fide nature of the claim was necessary. The District Judge set aside the order of remand passed by the appellate authority and directed the said authority to dispose of the case on merits. Hence this revision.

(3.) The counsel for the petitioner contends that the District Judge has misunderstood the scope of S.11(10) of the Act. He relied upon a Division Bench decision of this Court reported in 1975 KLT 437 and of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1963 SC 499 , in support of his contention. I shall refer to these authorities presently and before doing so, I think it necessary to examine the scheme of the Act providing for eviction of the tenant.