SUBHADRA Vs. GOPALAKRISHNA NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision Petitioner sought to evict the Respondent herein invoking Sub -sections (2) and (3) of Section 11 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. During the course of evidence it turned out that the Respondent, as contended by him, was in continuous occupation of the building in question from a date prior to 1st April 1940. Therefore the provision governing eviction was understood by the lower courts to be Sub -section (17) of Section 11. The case was considered on that basis also by all the three courts, the Rent Control Court, the Appellate Court, and the Revisional Court. While the Rent Control Court and the Revisional Court agreed that the bar under Sub -section (17) is attracted, the Appellate Authority took the view that the revision Petitioner is entitled to evict the Respondent despite Sub -section (17) of Section 11. Hence this revision impugning the revisional order passed by the learned District Judge.

(2.) THE learned District Judge relying on the decision of this Court in Meannan v. Venkatarama Chettiar, 1966 K.L.T. 116 said that "occupation of a rented building does not imply dire need as laid down by the High Court in the ruling reported in, 1966 K.L.T. 116". This, I suppose, has blurred the view of the revisional court in that that decision says something different, namely, that the landlord seeking eviction has a rented house where he resides and can continue to reside without imminent danger of eviction, is not a relevant answer in deciding whether he "is in dire need of a place of residence and has none of his own ". This is clear from paragraph 7 of the decision aforesaid wherein Govindan Nair, J.; as he then was said as follows:

(3.) CONSTRUING the word 'required' in the following provision in the Rent Act, 1968: