RATNAKARA SHENOY Vs. RENT CONTROLLER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A landlord who evicted his tenant from the building pursuant to an order of eviction granted under S.11(4)(iv) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short 'the Act') did not care to reconstruct the building, perhaps under the impression that the provisos to S.11(4)(iv) are not meant to be enforced. The evicted tenant, in the meanwhile, took another building on a much higher rent. He would have expected that on completion of the reconstruction of the new building, he could occupy the same since he has the first option under the Act to occupy the new building. But his expectations remained unfulfilled. He filed a petition before the Rent Control Court for appropriate directions under the said provisos. He made an offer that if the landlord fails to reconstruct the building for any reasons, he would carry out the reconstruction work on condition that the rent payable by him could be adjusted against the amount spent for reconstruction. In the alternative, he prayed for awarding damages equal to the excess rent which he is now paying on the building which he presently occupies. Further prayer is for imposition of fine on the landlord for wilfully neglecting to reconstruct the building. However, when the case was argued in the Rent Control Court, the tenant did not press for the relief to permit him to reconstruct the building at his cost. The Rent Control Court directed the landlord to reconstruct the building within one year and further directed him to pay damages to the tenant at the rate of Rs. 710/- per month (being the difference between the rent which he is now paying and the earlier rent), if the landlord fails to reconstruct the building within the permitted time. The appeal and the revision filed by the landlord were dismissed. Hence this Original Petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution.

(2.) Facts, which are not disputed, are these: The rent of the building was Rupees forty per month. The order of eviction passed on the ground under S.11(4)(iv) of the Act was challenged by the tenant in revision before the District Court and in a second revision before the High Court. While dismissing the Civil Revision Petition, this Court directed the tenant to vacate the premises on or before 31-12-1982 and the landlord to reconstruct the building within eighteen months from the date of surrender. The tenant vacated the premises as directed by the High Court and moved to another building which belongs to a third person. The landlord, soon after getting vacant possession of the building, pulled it down, but did not take any other step to start reconstruction. The tenant's case that the rent of the present building is Rs. 750/- per month, though disputed by the landlord, was found to be true by the courts below. The stand of the landlord is that he could not take up the work of reconstruction due to high escalation of cost of construction. He estimated the cost to be around one lakh rupees at the time of filing the petition, whereas the present estimation exceeds Rupees five lakhs. So, he made a counter offer to the tenant as this: If the tenant advances four lakhs as a loan, he would start reconstruction of the building and the loan would be repaid with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. This offer was not given any serious consideration either by the tenant or by the three courts. Nor does it deserve any serious consideration.

(3.) S.11(4)(iv) of the Act enables a landlord to apply to the Rent Control Court for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building if the building is in such a condition that it needs reconstruction and if the landlord requires bona fide to reconstruct the same. He would get an order of eviction only if he satisfies the court that he has the plan and licence, if any required, and the ability to rebuild and if the proposal is not made as a pretext for eviction. In order to protect the interest of such evicted tenants the statute inserted the third proviso which gives the right of first option to the tenant to occupy the reconstructed building. The legislature was aware of the possibility of landlords trying to thwart the said right by not reconstructing the building or by putting up the new structure in such a manner as to make it unsuitable for the tenant. In order to safeguard the interest of the tenant, the legislature has included the first two provisos in the clause. They read as follows: