K.P CHANDRASENAN Vs. RAJALAKSHMI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the tenant and the respondents are the landlords.

(2.) An order of eviction was passed against the petitioner by the Rent Control Court, Alappuzha in R.C.P. No.4 of 2010 and it was affirmed in appeal by the Rent Control Appellate Authority in R.C.A.No.43 of 2011. The Rent Control Court as well as the Rent Control Appellate Authority concurrently found that the need for vacant possession of the petition schedule room alleged by the landlords is bona fide and that the tenant is not entitled to get the protection of the second proviso to Section 11 (3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965.

(3.) The petition schedule room is one among the several in a building owned by the landlords. They alleged that they bona fide needed the building for starting a textiles shop. They wanted to construct a new building, after evicting the tenants from the building. The respondent herein, the tenant of the petition schedule room, had agreed that he would vacate the room when the landlords start construction of the new building. Therefore, they did not file any petition for eviction against him and another tenant Natarajan, when petitions were filed against the tenants of the other rooms in the building. The landlords had initially filed rent control petitions against all the other tenants except one Natarajan. The rent control petitions filed against other tenants were allowed by the Rent Control Court and the order of eviction against them was affirmed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority and finally approved by this Court in R.C.R.No.224 of 2005 and connected cases. While ordering eviction of tenants therein, this Court had imposed certain conditions. The fourth condition mentioned in that order reads as follows: