KRISHNAN Vs. SUKUMARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The landlord in a proceeding for eviction of the tenant under the provisions of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short 'the Act') is the revision petitioner. The revision is directed against the order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority in R.C.A. No. 1 of 1989 confirming the order of the Rent Controller disallowing eviction on the ground of reconstruction.

(2.) The petition for eviction had been filed by the landlord alleging that the petition schedule building was in a dilapidated condition and hence it required to be reconstructed. In the petition for eviction further plea is that the building is located in a busy place where there are buildings of modern type in the surrounding areas and in view of such recent development the petition schedule building required reconstruction. The Rent Controller after evaluating the oral evidence of PW. 1 and documentary evidence as per Exts. A1 to A8-came to the conclusion that the building requires reconstruction on the ground that new model buildings have come up in the locality. However, the bona fide need claimed by the landlord was doubted and therefore, the eviction was disallowed by the Rent Controller.

(3.) In appeal under S.18 of the Act the Rent Control Appellate Authority has considered the decisions of this Court in Vareed Porinchu v. Ouseph ( 1971 KLT 571 ), Saramma Varghese v. George ( 1971 KLT 282 ), Church of South India Trust Association v. Ramanathan ( 1979 KLT 397 ) and Balagangadhara Menon v. T. V. Peter ( 1984 KLT 845 ). An analysis of the above decisions would bring forth that in a petition under S.11(4)(iv) of the Act the court can have regard to the area where the building is situated, the nature of the developments that are taking place in the locality etc. It is wrong to think that a building needs reconstruction only after it has become irreparable or is about to collapse. It is not the law that the landlord should wait until that stage before he attempts a reconstruction. It is not irrelevant to refer to the local conditions. This in effect is the conclusion arrived at by the Division Bench in Balagangadhara Menon's case (supra). It must be recalled in this context that the decision in Thanka v. Narayani ( 1981 KLT 502 ) expressing a narrow view was overruled by the Division Bench in the above case. K.K. Mathew, J. (as the learned judge then was) expressed the view that the court can have regard to the area where the building is situated, the nature of the developments that are taking place in the area etc. (See: Ahammad Kanna v. Muhammed Haneef ( 1967 KLT 841 ). In the present case the Appellate Authority found that the building needs reconstruction on account of new developments in the locality and that the petitioner has got means for reconstruction of the same. However, the appeal was dismissed on the ground that the claim for reconstruction is not found to be bona fide.