THAVAKKARA KOOLATH VALAPPIL SREEDHARAM Vs. CHALAKKADAN KODICHI NALINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A tenant who was evicted from the subject building in execution of an order of eviction passed by the authorities under the Rent Control Act and confirmed by this Court and the Supreme Court on the ground of own occupation under Sub-section (3) of Section 11 is in revision. He filed fresh rent control petition invoking Sub-section (12) of Section 11 alleging that the landlord had not occupied the building for the need projected in the eviction petition. The need alleged in the eviction petition was that possession of the building is needed bona fide, so that the second Respondent in the present revision who was the second Petitioner in the eviction petition can occupy the building for the conduct of a tutorial college. The revision Petitioner alleges that after getting vacant possession, the second Respondent never occupied the building at all. On the other hand, the building was let out to certain gypsies. According to the revision Petitioner the landlord never had any genuine intention of conducting tutorial college in the subject building. The non-occupation of the subject building after getting possession was without any reasonable cause. Hence the petition under Sub-section (12) of Section 11 seeking re-delivery of the petition schedule building to the revision Petitioner was filed by the evicted tenant.

(2.) The petition was resisted by the Respondents. They contended that as soon as the building was got vacated the Respondents started the tutorial college. But the condition of the building was highly dilapidated due to negligent user by the revision Petitioner. In fact, at the time when delivery was taken, only a small portion of the building was habitable. Therefore parents of students were not prepared to send their children for the classes conducted in the building. Second Respondent therefore became compelled to stop the tutorial college. The condition of the building was such that reconstruction was found absolutely necessary. Therefore the Respondents started demolishing the building for the purpose of starting reconstruction. Except two rooms, all other portions of the building were demolished. At that juncture, the revision Petitioner filed a suit for injunction and got an interim order of injunction restraining the demolition and reconstruction. Thus it was contended that the non-occupation of the building after obtaining eviction was due to reasonable and genuine causes. The existing structure is of temporary nature and hence the revision Petitioner is not entitled to get order of re-possession.

(3.) The petition was enquired into by the Rent Control Court. Evidence consisted of the testimonies of P.W. 1 and R.W. 1 and Ext. A-1. A commission was taken out and the commissioner's report was marked as Ext. C-1 and the plan submitted by him was marked as Ext. C-2. The Rent Control Court on evaluating the evidence found that the Respondent landlords failed to occupy the building within one month of the date of eviction and that said non-occupation was without reasonable cause. The Rent Control Court allowed the petition. The landlords preferred appeal to the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority under the judgment which is impugned in this revision allowed the appeal and dismissed the petition under Sub-section (12) of Section 11.