PANOLI ALIKUTTY Vs. SURESH BABU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Could an entry in a property tax or house tax assessment book maintained by a local authority relating to the occupancy or vacancy of a building be received as evidence of the said fact in the light of Sec. 26 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (the Act) in a proceedings for eviction under the Act, is the pivotal question to be answered in this reference.

(2.) The bare facts of the case need to be stated for a proper consideration of the question. The reference arises from a rent control revision filed under Sec. 20 of the Act. The landlords in a proceedings for eviction under the Act are the petitioners in the revision. They sought eviction of the tenant of a building on the ground of bonafide need. The Rent Control Court did not consider the issue whether the need set up by the landlords is bonafide. Instead, it went straight to the first proviso to Sec. 11(3) of the Act and held that the landlords are in possession of more than one vacant room and as the said room can be made use of for their need, they are not entitled to evict the tenant. The said decision has been affirmed in appeal by the Appellate Authority. The decisions of the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority are under challenge in the revision.

(3.) The Division Bench before which the matter came up noticed that the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that there are vacant rooms in possession of the landlords in the light of Sec. 26 of the Act, solely based on the entries in Ext.B1 certified extract of the property tax assessment book maintained by the local authority. It appeared to the Division Bench that the decisions of the Division Benches of this Court on the question, viz, the decisions inAbdul Kader Vs. George Joseph and Another [2009 (1) KLT 205]and inNabeesa Abdul Khader Vs. Suresh Kurian [2009 (1) KLT 1020], on one hand, and the decision inCheruvalath Krishnadasan Vs. Addissery Raghavan [2017 (4) KHC 894 (DB)]on the other hand, are in conflict. It is in the said circumstances that the question was referred by the Bench for decision by a Full Bench.