VALIYAPARAMBATH RAJAN Vs. POLI RAGHVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defeated tenants husband and wife, against whom an order of eviction on the grounds under S.11(2)(b) and 11(8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease And Rent Control) Act 2 1965 has been concurrently passed by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority, are the petitioners in this revision petition under S.20 of the Act. The revision petitioners' defence to the case for eviction under S.11(2)(b) was that the entire arrears of rent demanded in the statutory demand notice issued under S.11(2) was discharged by them during the pendency of the rent control petition. This defence was rightly turned down by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority taking the view that in view of the terms of S.11(2)(b), it is obligatory that if the tenant does not discharge the arrears of rent together with interest at 6% p.a. and postal charges within 15 days of receiving the notice, an order of eviction under S.11(2)(b) shall follow. According to us, the orders of eviction passed under S.11(2)(b) are not absolute orders of eviction. They are only provisional orders and the petitioners tenants do not have to worry about such orders since those orders are liable to be vacated by the Rent Control Court on application under S.11(2)(c) being filed before that Court. Therefore, we do not find any reason for interfering with the order of eviction under S.11(2)(b). We grant one more month's time from today to the petitioners to apply to the Rent Control Court under S.11(2)(c) for getting the orders passed under S.11(2)(b) vacated.

(2.) The landlord's case in the context of the substantial ground under S.11(8) was that the petitioners' shop room is one of the four rooms in a larger building belonging to the landlord. The landlord averred that he himself is in occupation of one of the four rooms and is doing grocery business therein. He averred further that two rooms (obviously the two middle rooms) were under the occupation of his sons, who were doing their independent business therein. The fourth room of the building is the subject matter of the Rent Control proceedings. According to the landlord, he requires the room in the possession of the revision petitioners, for expanding the grocery business, which is being conducted by him. The landlord's plea was resisted by the revision petitioners, who contended that at the time of issuance of lawyer notice and also at the time of institution of the rent control petition, the landlord was in possession of three rooms including the two rooms alleged to be possessed by the landlord's sons. The claim was not at all bona fide. If the claim was genuine, the same could have been accomplished by utilising either of the two rooms, which were remaining vacant at the time when the need arose. The revision petitioners also contended that the petition should fail in view of the 1st proviso to sub-section 10 of S.11, since the hardship, which will be occasioned to the petitioners on account of eviction, will out weigh the advantages which the landlord may gain by getting eviction. The evidence at trial before the Rent Control Court consisted of the oral testimony of the landlord as PW 1 and that of the revision petitioners as RW 1. The documentary evidence on the side of the landlord consisted of Exts. A1 to A8 while the same consisted on the side of the tenant of Ext. B1 to B3. Ext. A2 was a copy of the lawyer notice and Ext. A7 was a copy of the reply notice sent by the revision petitioners. Ext. A8 dated 15/03/2007 (some two months after the institution of the RCP) was a licence fee receipt issued by the local authority in favour of the son of the landlord regarding the conduct of the business by him in the middle rooms of the four room building. The Rent Control Court, on evaluation of the evidence, came to the conclusion that the landlord's claim for additional accommodation was bona fide and that the advantages which will enure to the landlord by getting the eviction will out weigh the hardships which may be occasioned to the petitioners and accordingly, ordered eviction. The appellate authority also after a reappraisal of the evidence concurred with the conclusions of the Rent Control Court and confirmed the order of eviction.

(3.) Sri. C. Valsalan, the learned counsel for the petitioners has addressed us extensively. Sri. Valsalan submitted that at the time of issuance of Ext. A2 lawyer notice and even at the time of institution of the Rent Control Petition, the two middle rooms of the four room building were under the possession of the landlord himself and it is only after receiving Ext. A7 reply notice that the landlord would incorporate a plea to the effect that the middle rooms are in the possession of his sons. Drawing our attention to Ext. A8, Sri. Valsalan submitted that Ext. A8 is a postlitem document and barring that, there is no acceptable legal evidence to support the findings of the authorities below that the middle rooms are possessed by the sons. The question of comparative advantages and hardships has also not been correctly decided by the authorities below, according to Sri. Valsalan.