IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN FRIDAY, THE 15TH OCTOBER 2010 / 23RD ASWINA 1932 RCRev..No. 310 of 2010() ------------------------ RCA.54/2008 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHROITY, ALAPPUZHA RCP.15/2006 of RENT CONTROL COURT, CHERTHALA .................... RENT CONTROL/REVN.PETITIONER/APPELLANT IN RCA/RESPONDENT IN RCP ------------------------------------------------ MRS. VASANTHAKUMARI, AGED 52 YEARS, HAREESH TEXTILES, ROOM NO.VIII/319 OF KAVALAM PANCHAYATH, KAVALAM, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.B.S.SURESH KUMAR SRI.SUNIL.M.KARANY RESPONDENT(S)/RESPNDENT IN RCA/PETITIONER IN RCP: --------------- DR. CHERIYAN JOB, AGED 58 YEARS, THATTASSERIL, KAVALAM, NOW AT THATTASSERIL, VATTAPPARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No. 310 OF 2010 ------------------------ Dated this the 15th day of October, 2010 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The tenant challenges in this revision under Section 20 the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the order of eviction which was passed by the Rent Control Court on the ground under Section 11(4)(iv) of Act 2 of 1965. Even though the bona fides of the need of the landlord to reconstruct the building was disputed and it was contended that the building does not require reconstruction and also that the RCP is filed with the object of disposing of the entire property after eviction is obtained, the Rent Control Court on evaluating the evidence adduced by the parties came to the conclusion that the condition of the building warrants reconstruction; that the landlord has the ability to carry out the reconstruction and also that the landlord is about to get approval for the requisite plan for the proposed reconstruction. Accordingly, it was held that eviction ground RCR.No.310/2010 2 under Section 11 (4)(iv) stood established in the case. 2. The Rent Control Appellate Authority considering the appeal preferred by the revision petitioner, reappraised the evidence. That Authority concurred with all the conclusions of the Rent Control Court and confirmed the order of eviction and dismissed the appeal. 3. In this revision various grounds are raised challenging the judgment of the Appellate Authority. Sri.B.S.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, submitted before us that the judgment of the Appellate Authority is illegal, irregular and improper. According to him, the findings entered by the statutory authorities are contrary to the evidence available in the case. The learned counsel also submitted that the need of reconstruction projected by the landlord is just a ruse to evict the revision petitioner and then sell off the entire property. 4. Even though Mr.Suresh Kumar was very persuasive in his submissions, we are unable to accept the above submissions. We have gone through the judgment of the Appellate Authority as well as the order of the Rent Control Court. We find that the finding that the building warrants reconstruction on account of its RCR.No.310/2010 3 physical and social conditions was arrived at by the Rent Control Court on the basis of Exts.C1 and C2 commission reports. We also find that apart from the documents Exts.A1 and A2 certificates issued respectively by the Union Bank of India and the Motorola India Private Limited, where the landlady is working, the tenant practically admitted in his evidence that the landlord was having financial ability to carry out reconstruction, as he belongs to very affluent family of Kavalam. We also notice that the landlord is a Doctor by profession. One of the arguments seriously raised before us by Mr.Suresh Kumar was that the landlord does not have requisite plan and licence. Exts.X1 file pertaining to the plan and permission submitted by the landlord was produced by the Panchayat Secretary. He was examined as CPW1. CPW1 very convincingly stated that issuance of a permit is only a formality, as the Building Inspector found that the plan is in order in all respects. We, therefore, turn down the argument that the landlord does not have a valid plan and licence. The learned counsel submitted that if the building is constructed according to the present plan, the tenant will not be able to enjoy her statutory right of induction. The submission RCR.No.310/2010 4 was that the exact area, which is being enjoyed presently in the petition schedule building, will not be available in the new building. We are not impressed by this argument either. Exact equivalence in the matter of area cannot be insisted upon. The introduction of Building Rules in Kavalam Panchayat is a subsequent development which was beyond the control of the landlord. The maximum that the tenant can aspire for is more or less the same advantages which she is presently enjoying. We are told that two other tenants, who were in occupation of the adjacent portions, have surrendered after compromising the issue with the landlord. It is clear to our mind that there will not be any difficulty for the revision petitioner in enjoying the statutory right of reinduction under Section 11 (4)(iv) 3rd proviso. 5. The result of the above discussion is that revision fails as we do not find any irregularity, illegality or impropriety about the findings entered concurrently by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority. 6. Mr.Suresh Kumar made a last plea that his client should be given one year's time to surrender the premises. The learned counsel also submitted that the petitioner is trying to purchase RCR.No.310/2010 5 land and put up own building in the same Panchayat. In view of that submission, even as we confirm the judgment of the Appellate Authority and dismiss the RCR, we are inclined to issue notice to the respondent for deciding on the time to be granted to surrender and for compromise if any. The Result is that RCR will stand dismissed. . PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE dpk