PADMANABHA NAIR Vs. DEVAKI BRHAMANI AMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A tenant who has suffered order of eviction passed concurrently on the ground under S.11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965 by the Rent Control Court as well as the Appellate Authority is the revision petitioner. The parties will be referred to as tenant and the landlords respectively. The case of the landlords was that the petition schedule room which is a bunk room is required so that one Rajan - PW 2, husband of the third respondent could put up a new building after demolishing the existing building and start a printing press business therein. The contention which was prominently raised by the tenant was that he is a lessee of the land and that the building in question was put up by him only and therefore he has ownership over the building. The above contention was repelled by the Courts below on the basis of evidence which consisted inter alia of property tax assessment registers maintained by the local authority in relation to the building. The tenant did not specifically claim that the rent control petition was liable to fail in view of the first proviso to S.11(3). He claimed protection of the second proviso to S.11(3). He failed in establishing that he satisfies either of the ingredients of that proviso. Thus his claim for protection under the second proviso was also turned down concurrently.

(2.) Pursuant to our order dated 12/01/2009 the respondents were served with notice by special messenger. They entered appearance through advocate Sri. Harish R. Menon. Sri. T. K. Saidalikutty, learned counsel for the petitioners addressed us in detail on the various grounds raised in the revision memorandum. Sri. Saidalikutty submitted that the rent control petition was liable to be dismissed despite the finding that the claim is bona fide and the further finding that the tenants are not entitled to the protection of the second proviso to S.11(3). According to him, the petition shall fail in view of the first proviso to S.11(3). Learned counsel conceded that the tenants were unable to show that the landlords are in possession of another building of their own in which they could accomplish their projected need. He drew our attention to the judgment of this Court in Ikkorakutty v. Hariharan, 1973 KHC 210 : 1973 KLT 986 : 1973 KLJ 24 : 1972 KLR 630 : ILR 1973 (1) Ker. 126 : AIR 1973 Ker. 31 and argued that in the nature of the need which is projected by the landlords it is not necessary to show that the landlords are having possession of another building of their own. According to him, It is sufficient if it is shown that the landlords have possession of other lands upon which they could construct a new building.

(3.) We shall straight away deal with the above argument of the learned counsel. Ikkorakutty v. Hariharan was a case in which a learned Single Judge of this Court, Justice K. Bhaskaran (as he then was) dealt inter alia with the scope and ambit of the first proviso to S.11(3). The learned Judge has stated at paragraph 10 of his judgment as follows: