Vengattu Madhavan and Desom Kozhikode Taluk Pin-673616 and Vengattu Vasu vs Thiruvoth Prabhavathi, Thirvoth Shabul and Shabna

Pius C. Kuriakose, J.—Under challenge in this revision u/s 20 filed by the tenants is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court under sub section (3) of Section 11 of Act 2 of 1965. Even though the ground of arrears of rent was also invoked by the respondents/landlords, that ground does not survive any longer. The need projected by the landlords was that the petition schedule building is a very old one and situated on the front side of the property belonging to them and that they want to demolish the petition schedule building so that they can put up a new building towards back side of the petition schedule building, whereby the new building will have sufficiently spacious front yard. The need of the landlords is to occupy the newly constructed building for the purpose of conducting an institute in food processing and embroidery work and the third respondent, who is the daughter of the first and second landlords, has the requisite qualifications in food processing as well as embroidery works.

Even though the bona fides of the need was disputed and it was contended by the tenants that they are entitled for the benefit of the second proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11, the Rent Control Court Court conducted an enquiry in which the evidence consisted of Exts. A1 to A11, Ext.B1 to B4 apart from the oral evidence of PW1, the 3rd respondent, and that of Rws1 to RW3. The commissioner''s report and plan were marked as Exts.C1 and C1(a) respectively. The Rent Control Court on evaluating the evidence, came to the conclusion that the need was bona fide and revision petition was not liable to fail by virtue of any of the provisos to sub section (3) of Section 11. Accordingly, eviction order was passed and the appellate authority under the impugned judgment has confirmed the above eviction order.

In this revision u/s 20, various grounds are raised assailing the eviction order passed u/s 11 (3). Sri. V.T. Madhavanuni learned counsel for the revision petitioners addressed extensive submissions before us based on the grounds raised in the revision.

Mr. Madhavanunni submitted that there are no sufficient pleadings in the rent control petition as to the area required by PW3 for conducting an institute for food processing and embroidery works. It is possible that in the new building to be constructed there will be extra space available. If the landlord had invoked Section 11 (4)(iv), the tenant could have been inducted into such extra space available in the new building in terms of 3rd proviso to Section 11 (4)(iv). The learned counsel submitted that findings entered by the Appellate Authority and the Rent Control Court are vitiated by illegalities, irregularities and improprieties.

We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions of Mr. Madhavanunni. We have carefully read through the order passed by the Rent Control Court and the judgment of the appellate authority. We have also perused the memorandum of appeal filed by the revision petitioners against the order of the Rent Control Court. We were taken through the relevant pleadings in the Rent Control petition by the learned counsel for the petitioner himself. We cannot agree with the learned counsel for the revision petitioners that the rent control petition lacks any pleadings as to the extent of space required by the landlords for the conduct of their proposed food processing and embroidery institute. A reading of the pleadings will show that the landlords'' need is to demolish the existing building and to put up a new building and occupy that new building(in the entirety) for the purpose of conducting food processing institute and an institute for embroidery works. The argument of Mr. Madhavanunni, that it was obligatory on the part of the landlords to have produced plan and licence and that for want of such production prejudice has been caused to the tenants, also does not appeal to us. As sub section (3) of Section 11 is the only eviction ground which is invoked, there is no necessity on the part of the landlords to produce plan and licence. Production of plan and licence will become necessary only when the evicted tenant is to be re- -inducted into the reconstructed building. As for the present case is concerned on the only question as to whether the existing building warrants reconstruction, it was practically agreed before us by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners himself, may be on the basis of the commissioner''s report which is available in the case, that the physical condition of the building is such that it warrants reconstruction. On going through the memorandum of appeal also, we find that no ground based on the present contention that Section 11 (4)(iv) should also have been invoked has been raised. In short, we do not find any illegality, irregularity or improperly as envisaged u/s 29 of Act 2 of 1965 about the judgment of the appellate authority. We confirm the judgment of the appellate authority and dismiss the revision. However, we issue notice by speed post to the respondents to determine;

i). the extent of time to be given to the revision petitioners to surrender the premises.

ii). Whether the landlords do have any plan and licence for carrying out proposed reconstruction.

Interim stay for two months.