KURIEN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was the tenant of a portion of the building owned by the 2nd respondent. Proceedings under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, (for short the Act) were initiated for evicting the petitioner. The eviction was sought under S.11(3) and 11(4)(i) of the Act. The tenant opposed the petition on many grounds. He alleged that the lease arrangement was one entered into prior to 1-4-1940. The Rent Control Court accepted the tenant's contentions and dismissed the application on 17-6-1969. The 2nd respondent took up the matter in appeal in B.R.C. A.S. No. 27 of 1969. The appellate authority, the Subordinate Judge, Kottayam, allowed the recovery on the ground of bona fide requirement to re-construct the building. The claim under S.11(3) was denied. The tenant and the landlord took up the matter in revision before the District Court. Both revision petitions were dismissed on 8-6-1971. The tenant took up the matter in revision before this court in C.R.P. No. 787 of 1971. A Division Bench of this court dismissed that revision on 5-4-1972 granting three months time to the tenant for vacating the building and six months' time to the landlord, after recovery of possession of the building for re-construction. The landlord got possession of the building on 10-8-1972. The construction of the new building was completed on 22-11-1973. The landlord occupied the entire building. The tenant was not given any portion of it. Thereupon he approached the Rent Control Court for getting a portion of the new building allotted to him. The Rent Control Court dismissed that application on 16-8-1979. On appeal, the Appellate Authority set aside the order of the Rent Control Court and directed the Rent Control Court to determine the actual portion to be given to the tenant and for assessing the amount of damages claimed by the tenant. The 2nd resplendent challenged that order in revision before the District Court, Kottayam in B.R.C. R.P. No. 1 of 1982. On 26-3-1982, the District Court dismissed that revision petition. The 2nd respondent filed C.R.P. No. 1177 of 1982 before this court against the order of the District Court.

(2.) The 2nd respondent moved the Government en 21-1-1978, to exempt his building from the purview of the Act, under S.25(1) of the Act. The Government dismissed that petition on 3-6-1981. After filing the C.R.P. No. 1177 of 1982 before this court, the 2nd respondent again moved the Government for exempting his building under S.25(1) of the Act. By Ext P4 notification dated 18-6-1983, the Government exempted the building belonging to the 2nd respondent from the operation of the 3rd proviso to clause (iv) of sub-s. (4) of S.11 of the Act. That notification is under challenge.

(3.) Since the 2nd respondent got Ext. P4 notification exempting his building from the purview of the 3rd proviso to S.11(4)(iv) of the Act he got C.R.P. No. 1177/1982 dismissed as not pressed.