P.P. Abraham vs Dr. K.C. Thomas

Pius C. Kuriakose, J.—Under challenge in this revision filed u/s 20 is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the order of eviction passed against the tenant on the ground under Sub-section (8) of Section 11. The landlords had sought eviction on the ground of arrears of rent also, but we are informed that the order of the Rent Control Court declining eviction on that ground has attained finality. The landlords, who are father and son, are conducting their dental clinic in the first floor of the petition schedule building which is the second floor of a three storyed building. The tenant revision petitioner is conducting business of manufacturing and service of contact lens in the second floor of the same building. The need projected by the landlords u/s 11(8) is that they need additional accommodation for the purpose of expanding their clinic.

Bona fides of the need was disputed. It was also contended that the tenant is entitled for the protection of the provisos to Sub-section (10) of Section 11 i.e. advantages to be gained by the landlord will not outweigh hardships the tenant will sustain. At trial by the Rent Control Court, evidence consisted of Exts.A1 to A3, report C1 and C1(a) sketch submitted by the commissioner, oral evidence of PWs1 and 2 and that of RW1. The Rent Control Court on analysing the evidence adduced by the parties concluded that the need of additional accommodation was bona fide. It was concluded that the hardship, which may be sustained by the tenant, will not outweigh the advantages which the landlords will gain by getting eviction. Accordingly, the order of eviction was passed.

The Appellate Authority made a reappraisal of the evidence and would concur with all the conclusions of the Rent Control Court, thus the appeal was dismissed and the order of eviction was passed.

In this revision u/s 20 various grounds have been raised assailing the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority and Sri. P.V. Baby, learned Counsel for the revision petitioner addressed arguments before us on the basis of those grounds. Though Mr. Baby addressed arguments on the basis of all the grounds, he would highlight two points. The first point, according to him, is that two rooms in the ground floor of the three storyed building fell vacant at a time when the landlords were harbouring their need for additional accommodation. Still those rooms were not utilised by the landlords for accomplishing the need for additional accommodation. The second point, the learned Counsel urged, was that Ext.A3 settlement deed under which the second respondent, the present landlord, obtained title was executed within a period of one year prior to the institution of the RCP. According to him, the third proviso to Sub-section (3) of Section 11 would operate as a bar against the application.

As for the second point urged by Mr. Baby, we are of the view that contention based on the 3rd proviso is not applicable to the revision petitioner in the present case where the eviction ground invoked is Sub-section (8) of Section 11 and not Sub-section (3) of Section 11. The learned Appellate Authority has rightly relied on the judgment of this Court in Indian Saree House Vs. Radhalakshmy, , wherein it is held that 3rd and 4th provisos to Section 11(3) are not applicable to cases u/s 11(8).

We do not find much force in the first point that is urged before us by Mr. Baby. The rooms which fell vacant were rooms in the ground floor. The landlords'' explanation was that for expanding their existing clinic, which is in the first floor, the ideal premises will be the petition schedule premises in the second floor and not the rooms in the ground floor which may be ideal for conducting actual trade. The landlords had another reason to pick and choose the petition schedule building for accomplishing their bona fides need. The ground floor rooms will fetch more rent. According to us the law allows a certain amount of latitude to the landlords in picking and choosing the space required for accomplishing their needs whether it be u/s 11(3) or 11(8). In short, we do not find any illegality, irregularity or impropriety as envisaged by Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965 tainting the judgment of the Appellate Authority. Mr. Baby would make a last plea that at least one year''s time be granted to the revision petitioner for surrendering the premises as it will be difficult for the revision petitioner to remove the machineries and identify a suitable place for re-locating the business. We are not inclined to grant so much of time. However, we feel that on the totality of the facts and circumstances attending on this case, the revision petitioner can be given time till 31/3/2011 subject to the following conditions;

The revision petitioner shall file an affidavit before the Execution Court or the Rent Control Court as the case may be within three weeks from today undertaking that he shall give peaceful surrender of the petition schedule building to the respondents/landlords on or before 31/3/2011 and that he shall discharge arrears of rent if any within one month and shall continue to pay occupational charges at the existing rent rate of Rs. 2000/ - per month as and and when the same falls due.

The revision petitioner will get benefit of time granted above only if the affidavit as directed above is filed on time.