M BASHEER Vs. REMANI GOPALAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners were the tenants of the petition schedule building in R.C.(O.P.) No.110 of 2006 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Ernakulam, a petition for eviction filed by the respondent/landlord under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short') . The petitioners resisted the said petition. After considering the rival contentions and the evidence oral and documentary on record, accepting the need put forward by the landlord, the rent control court passed an order of eviction on 31.3.2010. The tenants unsuccessfully challenged that order by filing R.C.A. Nos. 59 of 2010 and 78 of 2010 on the file of the Rent Control Appellant Authority, Ernakulam. The appeals were heard and dismissed by a common judgment delivered on 20.09.2012. The petitioners herein thereupon filed R.C.R.Nos.66 of 2013 and 69 of 2013 in this court. The revision petitions were heard and dismissed by a Division Bench of this court by order passed on 16.1.2014 by granting the tenants six months time to surrender possession of the petition schedule building.

(2.) Later, on application filed by the tenants as I.A.No.1765 of 2014, this court enlarged the time to surrender vacant possession of the petition schedule building up to 15.12014. The keys of the building were accordingly surrendered by the tenant in the rent control court on 16.12014. Alleging that the landlord who got vacant possession of the petition schedule building on 16.12014 has not occupied it within one month from 16.12014 (namely, before 16.1.2015) , the petitioners filed I.A.No.4299 of 20115 under Section 11(12) of the Act with a prayer that the respondent landlord may be directed to restore possession of the petition schedule buildings to them. They had in the affidavit filed in support of the application inter alia averred as follows:

(3.) Upon receipt of notice, the respondent landlord entered appearance and filed Ext.P2 objections dated 18.12.2015. She had inter alia stated therein that when after obtaining the keys of the building she opened the building, she noticed that the entire building was in a dilapidated condition and unworthy of being put to use. She had even averred that the tenants have willfully destroyed the building, that she therefore filed E.A.No.488 of 2014 in the execution petition which was then pending, to bring the aforesaid facts to the notice of the execution court, but the execution court closed the said application. She had further averred that a sum of Rs.15, 00, 000/- is necessary to restore the building and to make it habitable. She had further averred that on account of inter vertebral disk-prolapse, she was hospitalised for treatment as an inpatient at Westfort Ayurveda Hospital, Thrissur and has been advised to take bed rest. She stated that she was therefore unable to carryout repairs and occupy the building. She had also averred that as on the date of surrender of the building the sum of Rs.7, 00, 000/- was due to her towards arrears of rent, besides the amounts outstanding to the Kerala State Electricity Board and the Kerala Water Authority. Along with the objections, she also filed I.A.No.11577 of 2015 for the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to conduct a local inspection of the building for the purpose of ascertaining its present condition with the help of a qualified engineer. This was also for the purpose of preparing an estimate to make it habitable. Though the rent control court allowed the said application, the Advocate Commissioner could not secure the services of an expert engineer. He however proceeded to inspect the petition schedule building on 14.2016 and submit Ext.P4 report dated 26.7.2016, which reads as follows: