KALLIANI Vs. MADHAVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only ground which found favour with the hierarchy of tribunals under the Rent Control law for ordering eviction was the one falling under S.11(4)(i) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The landlord contended that the building, which was admittedly 50 years old and was a thatched one, was in such a condition that it needed reconstruction. He also averred that he required it honestly to reconstruct it. He had the necessary plan and licence and satisfied the Court of his ability to rebuild. Thereupon, the Courts granted an eviction order.

(2.) Counsel for the tenant revision petitioner argues that two conditions need to be satisfied and they are independent conditions. For one thing, the landlord must satisfy the Court that he bona fide requires to reconstruct the building. The ruling reported in AIR 1963 SC 499 explains the conditions which are implied in this requirement of the law.

(3.) Counsel, however, argues and rightly, that the building must be in such a condition that it needs reconstruction and this ingredient has to be made out apart from the landlord's bona fide intention to reconstruct. Here, it is argued that the stress is upon the physical condition of the building. I do not agree. If eviction can be had only on the Court being satisfied that the physical condition of the building is on the verge of collapse, there is no doubt that few buildings could be evicted before they have actually collapsed. Knowing the length of time taken in rent control litigation in Kerala, not unusual to find the period between the institution of an application and its ultimate disposal in the revisional court lengthening into several years if a building perilously close to sinking alone can justify a petition under S.11(4)(iv) in a State with heavy monsoons, I do not know what purpose would be served by such a course except to endanger he lives of tenants. It is obvious, therefore, that a wider and more realistic meaning must be given to the expression "condition of the building". The social purpose of this provision is to remove the road blocks in the way of progress in building programmes. Old structures in newly developing areas may be like pimples on fair faces. Replacement and renewal of obsolescent and unsightly buildings to make room for larger, modern constructions is a social necessity, provided existing tenants are not thrown into the streets. The "condition of the building" is a larger concept which includes considerations of social surroundings and allied factors. Where the building is very old and incongruous with the social setting and the surroundings of the place, the Court has got to take a more liberal view in applying the provision of law. However, the primary purpose of the statute viz., prevention of unreasonable eviction must also inform the Court when applying this provision. That is precisely why the statute itself provides that the tenant, if evicted on the ground of need to reconstruct, should be put back in the building, when reconstructed. A blend of the social needs of replacement and renewal and the avoidance of unreasonable eviction is achieved by S.11(4)(iv), in that it provides for eviction when the building is in a physically or socially bad condition. At the same time, the tenant is armed with a right to get back into possession of the premises when rebuilt.