MADHAVAN Vs. RAMACHANDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MORE than 8 years ago,a landlord,claiming to be need of his own building for occupation,moved the Rent Control Court for eviction,hardly suspecting that the protracted course of legal proceedings would go on for so long and probably beguiled into believing that Rent Control proceedings would be disposed of quickly,as they should be,and that the tribunals in charge would obey the mandate of section 24 of the Kerala Buildings(Lease and Rent Control)Act "hereinafter referred to as the Act.This provision,a mere dead letter now,obliges the Rent Control Court to pass final orders in any proceeding before it within 4 months from the date of appearance of the parties thereto "as far as may be practicable.In the present case,the Court took 4 years instead of the statutory period of 4 months.If law courts acquire the chronic habit of slow motion and violate,with unconcern,specific legislative prescriptions limiting protraction,people generally will lose faith in the rule of law and become cynical about judicial institutions.

(2.) THERE were three separate engagements by which the petitioners(landlords)entrusted two buildings to the respondent(tenant ).Ext.A -5 is one such lease relating to one building(as ordinarily understood)and Ext.A -7 is another such lease which relates to the ground floor of the second building,the upstair part of which has been let out to the same tenant on an oral lease.The landlord brought one petition in regard to all the three engagements and sought eviction of both the buildings alleging bona fide need for own occupation,subletting and arrears of rent.We are concerned only with the first ground.The Rent Control Court refused eviction,except on the ground of arrears of rent which have since been deposited,negativing the plea of bona fide need and subletting.The appellate authority upheld the plea of bona fide need and negatived the tenant 's contention under the second proviso to section 11(3)of the Act.The revisional authority upheld the plea of bona fide need of the landlord,but also upheld the claim of the tenant under the second proviso to section 11(3 ),ultimately rejecting the eviction petition.In this revision by the landlord,it has been urged before me that the order of the revisional Court(under section 20 of the Act)is bad because there was no ground for reversing the finding of fact entered by the appellate authority against the tenant on the question of his dependence for his livelihood on the income derived from the business carried on by him in such building.The facts,so far as are relevant for this contention,may be briefly stated.The tenant manufactures eye -lees,medicated soaps,etc .,and he has been trading so successfully with such stuff that he has expanded his business considerably and depends for his livelihood on this operation.In one of the two buildings(No.1/164 covered by Ext.A -5 ),he resides with his family.In the other,he carries on his business.His case,however,is that he has put up some additional sheds and is using part of his dwelling to accommodate his expanding business.His contention is that he solely depends on the takings from this trade for his livelihood and therefore is protected from eviction by the second proviso to section 11(3)of the Act.He has also raised the ground that since there are three separate leases a single eviction petition for all the three together will not lie.He has improved upon this plea before me,in view of certain later developments,that the landlord 's case being that all these three engagements have subsequently merged into one transaction,there cannot be partial eviction and one building out of the two cannot be ordered to be evicted,as was done by the Subordinate Judge.He has also a contention that there has been no valid termination of the tenancy or tenancies and therefore eviction under the rent control law is not permissible,the provision for notice to quit under the Transfer of Property Act not having been complied with.

(3.) THE landlord 's case is(two brothers are the landlords who claimed the building in the beginning to belong to them jointly but,on partition subsequent to the institution of the petition,both the buildings have been set apart to the 2nd petitioner who,for all practical purposes,is the petitioner -landlord)that he is a school master in a Government school in Pathiripala;the buildings are in Ottappalam,7 miles away;he is sickly and does not have a convenient house in Pathiripala,the one that he is occupying being unsuitable for his residential needs.Moreover,two or three other teachers are staying with him in that building.He adds that he has received permission from the Education Department to stay at Ottappalam and attend to his duties as teacher in Pathiripala.His case is one of bona fide need for occupation for himself.He has also taken other grounds which are unnecessary to consider.At the time the petition was filed,it must be noted,he was a teacher in Perinthalmanna,which is far away from Ottappalam and Pathiripala.The ground of bona fide need was based on the allegation that he was expecting a transfer to Pathiripala from Perinthalmanna and that,in that event,he would be in real difficulty for a suitable accommodation unless he got back his own house.