SOCIAL SERVICE GUILD OF ASSISS Vs. OUESEPE CHACKO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The landlords petitioners before the Rent Control Court are the revision petitioners. The rent control petitions were instituted by them invoking the grounds under S.11(3) and 11(7) of the Act 2 of 1965. According to them, the first revision petitioner is a religious and charitable institution rendering considerable service to the pubic in the field of health and education and they bona fide require the buildings which are subject matter of the rent control petitions as well as another independent building situated nearby for the purpose of starting a consultation clinic cum dispensary in Cherthala town. The proposal, as stated in the rent control petitions, is to utilise the buildings, which are subject matter of the rent control petition, for the purpose of consultation clinic cum dispensary and to utilise the nearby independent building as residential quarters for the duty doctors who will be attached to the clinic. It is urged in the rent control petitions that the proposed consultation clinic cum dispensary is to be a memorial for late Rev. Fr. Joseph K. W. Thomas who was the founder of the green garden institutions conducted by the first petitioner and who incidentally was the Assistant Vicar of St. Mary's Church, Muttom, which is situated very near to the petition schedule buildings. The rent control petitions were resisted by the tenants raising various contentions. All the petitions were ordered to be tried jointly and were accordingly enquired into by the Rent Control Court. That Court on appreciating the evidence would accept the case of the landlords that they are institutions covered by Clause 7 of S.11 and found that the requirement is bona fide. Some of the tenants claimed protection of the second proviso to S.11(3) of the Rent Control Court. The Rent Control Court found that those tenants had not succeeded in establishing that they satisfied both the ingredients of that proviso. Resultantly the Rent Control Court passed an order of eviction under S.11(3) and 11(7) taking the view that the two sub-sections are not mutually exclusive. It will be noticed that the only witness, who was examined on the side landlords before the Rent Control Court was PW 1 - the manager who was collecting the rent from the tenants as authorised by the petitioners in the rent control petitions. The Rent Control Appellate Authority considering the appeals preferred by the various tenants would hold that the bona fides of the claim was not established by the oral evidence adduced by the PW 1. That authority found that there is nothing on the record to hold that the first petitioner in the rent control petition had anything to do with the buildings in question. That authority held that Ext. A1 bye laws pertaining to the first petitioner will not show that the second petitioner in the rent control petitions was an institution attached to the first petitioner. That authority further noticed that being an institution, if as a matter of fact, a decision has been taken to start a consultation clinic cum dispensary as a memorial for late father Rev. Father Joseph K. W. Thomas, there will be some decision taken in that regard by the management of the first petitioner and that in the absence of any document produced in that regard by the first petitioner it was difficult to believe the version of the petitioners that they have bona fide need to establish a consultation clinic cum dispensary. The appellate authority also noticed that the case pursued in evidence was to demolish the existing buildings and to construct new buildings in its place and that such a case does not have proper foundation in the pleadings. In the above context it was further noticed that since the Kerala Building Rules are applicable to the Cherthala Municipal Town, in order to carry out demolition and reconstruction of any building, it is necessary that construction plan is got approved and a permit issued by the local authority. Non production of the plan and licence and complete absence of pleadings regarding the reconstruction was also highlighted by the appellate authority as a circumstance to disagree with the conclusions of the Rent Control Court. The appellate authority would describe the mode of appreciation of evidence by the Rent Control Court as super special.

(2.) We have heard the submissions of Sri. Bobby John, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and also those of Sri. John Joseph, learned counsel for the respondents in CRP 758/2002 and also those of Sri. G. Gopakumar, learned counsel for the respondent in the other cases.

(3.) The learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that the Rent Control Appellate Authority erred seriously in interfering with the findings of the Rent Control Court which were founded on evidence which was actually available on record. He submitted that PW 1 was the manager of the various institutions, which were being conducted by the revision petitioners in Cherthala for years and hence his competence to give evidence on the side of the petitioners should not have been doubted. The learned counsel submitted that the finding of the Rent Control Appellate Authority that the first petitioner has absolutely nothing to do with the buildings in question and that ownership of the buildings is with the second petitioner only, has been rendered overlooking the undeniable reality that the first petitioner is a congregation of nuns and the second petitioner is a convent wherein group of nuns belonging to the first petitioner congregation are living. The learned counsel argued that the scope and ambit of sub-section (7) of S.11 was not appreciated properly by the Rent Control Appellate Authority and this has resulted in prejudice to the revision petitioners. The learned counsel further submitted that the authorities under the Rent Control Act are not to be concerned with propriety title over the building and their concern need only be regarding the existence of a landlord tenant relationship between the parties. In the instant case, such a relationship admittedly exists between the various respondents and the second petitioner. The learned counsel submitted that it is not an invariable rule that bona fides of a claim for own occupation can be established only by examining the landlord. The counsel argued that the contentions more seriously pursued by the respondents were regarding their eligibility for protection of the second proviso to S.11(3) and all the tenants failed in establishing that they are so eligible.