Mrs. Achamma Ittoop and another vs The District Judge and Others

K.N. Narayana Pillai

Eviction on the ground of bonafide need for reconstruction was ordered on the application of the petitioner''s predecessor It loop, u/s 11(4) (iv) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease And Rent Control) Act, 1965 (the Act). One year''s time was granted for reconstruction with option to the two tenants to occupy the. building after reconstruction. The existing building was demolished, after evicting the tenants. But, the building was never reconstructed. The tenants thereupon filed applications under the second provisos to Section 11 (4) (iv) for award of damages. The landlord resisted the applications on various grounds. Pending the applications, he died, and his wife and son, the present petitioners, were impleaded as his legal representatives. They resisted the applications inter alia on the ground that the building in question had been demolished, that there was no landlord tenant relation-ship between them and the erstwhile tenants, that they were not parties to the Rent Control Petition and therefore they were under no obligation to reconstruct the building. This contention was not accepted by either of the authorities below. The other contentions raised by Ittoop and repeated by the petitioners were also not accepted The applications filed by the tenants were allowed. This Original Petition is thus filed by the heirs of Ittoop under Article 227 of the Constitution and the only contention raised is that they are not under any obligation to reconstruct the building or to put the tenants in possession of the building after reconstruction.

The order of eviction was obtained by the petitioners'' predecessor u/s 11(4) (iv) of the Act with the obligation on the landlord to reconstruct the building within a period of one year. The tenants had the first option to occupy the budding after reconstruction. The order of eviction thus cast an obligation on the landlord to reconstruct with a corresponding right to occupy on the tenants. This obligation runs with the land. Persons who acquire right in the property either as heirs at law or by transfer inter vivos are bound by the direction. The heir or the transferee is as much bound to reconstruct the building as the original landlord himself, subject of course to the defences available under the first proviso. The fact that the building had been demolished by the time the devolution of interest took place or that the default had been committed by the original landowner himself does not in any manner alter the position. The obligation to rebuild is cast on the person in possession of the land, where the building stood, so long as he claims through or under the original landlord. To uphold the petitioners'' contention will be to defeat the provisions of Section 11(4) (iv) add to rob them of all the safeguards to the tenants.

There is therefore no merit in the contention raised by the petitioners The Original Petition has to fail. It is accordingly dismissed in limine.