IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI THURSDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2009 / 4TH ASHADHA 1931 RCRev..No. 176 of 2008() ------------------------ RCA.127/2004 of DISTRICT COURT, THALASSERY RCP.64/2002 of MUNSIFF COURT, THALASSERY .................... REVISION PETITIONERS)/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT --------------------------------------------- KARUVANTAVIDA PARAMBATHKANDI ABOOBACKER, S/O. MOIDU, GROCERY MERCHANT, SHOP NO. TMC 26/407. P.O. TEMPLE GATE, THALASSERY, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/PETITIONER ---------------------------------------------- PADIKKAL DAMU, S/O. KUNHIRAMAN, VENUS HOUSE, KODIYERI AMSOM, DESOM P.O. TEMPLE GATE, THALASSERY, KANNUR. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No.176 OF 2008 ------------------------ Dated this the 25th day of June, 2009 ORDER Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The tenant, who is aggrieved by the orders of eviction passed concurrently by the authorities under the Rent Control Act on the ground of arrears of rent Section 11(2)(b) and on the ground of reconstruction Section 11(4)(iv), has filed this revision petition under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. Even though Sri.Grashious Kuriakose, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, has addressed us very strenuously, we do not find any illegality, irregularity or impropriety warranting interference with the order of eviction passed under Section 11(2)(b). After all, the order of eviction under Section 11(2)(b) is only a tentative order of eviction which is liable to be vacated upon depositing entire arrears of rent found by the rent control court to be due. We notice that the authorities below have accepted the tenant's case regarding the rate of rent. Therefore, the tenant cannot have any legitimate RCR.No.176/2008 2 grievance regarding the order of eviction passed under Section 11(2)(b). We confirm the order of eviction passed under Section 11(2)(b), however directing that the said order should be vacated by the rent control court, if the entire arrears of rent is deposited together with statutory interest within one month from today. 2. As for the eviction order passed under Section 11(4)(iv), we have gone through the order of the rent control court and the judgment of the appellate authority. We find that the findings of the authorities below regarding the conditions of the building and the availability of a plan and permit for carrying out the reconstruction as well as financial condition of the landlord to carry out reconstruction are all founded on evidence which is actually on record. Here also we do not find any scope within the contours of powers under Section 20 of the Act to interfere with those findings of the authorities below. In fact Sri.Grashious Kuriakose, learned counsel for the revision petitioner would give thrust in his submission to the ground that what the tenant is going to get after reconstruction is only half of the area of the petition schedule building. In other words, the complaint of the revision petitioner is that the it will not be RCR.No.176/2008 3 possible for the landlord to reconstruct the building in a manner as to comply with the statutory rights of the tenant under the 3rd proviso to clause (iv) of sub section (4) of Section 11. We have considered the above argument of Sri.Grashious Kuriakose. On going through the order of the Rent Control Court as well as the judgment of the appellate authority, we find that the neither of those authorities have specifically provided that the tenant will be entitled to be re inducted into a portion of the petition schedule building after reconstruction. In fact, the tenant's right for re induction is statutory as is provided under 3rd proviso to clause (iv) of sub section (4) of Section 11. Even in the absence of specific direction by the rent Control court as well as the appellate authority, the tenant will be entitled for reinduction in terms of 3rd proviso to clause (iv) of sub section (4) of Section 11. It is clarified accordingly. 3. As for the identity of the building to which the revision petitioner should be reinducted, we are of the view that, that is a matter to be decided by the rent control court once the reconstruction of the building is over. We are sure that if appropriate application is filed by the revision petitioner before RCR.No.176/2008 4 the rent control court complaining negligence on the part of the landlord in re-inducting him into the reconstructed building or of any inadequacy of space in the building which is offered to him after reconstruction, that court will take decision on that application with notice to the landlord in accordance with law as provided in the statute and as settled by various judicial precedents rendered by this court and the Supreme Court in the context of the 3rd proviso to clause (iv) of sub section (4) of Section 11. In short, identity of the building into which the revision petitioner is to be reinducted after reconstruction will be decided in subsequent proceedings to be initiated after reconstruction is over. 4. As his last request Sri.Grashious Kiruaikose sought for some time to surrender the petition schedule building. Considering that request there will be a direction to the Execution Court not to effect delivery of the petition schedule building for a period of three months from today, provided affidavit is filed by the revision petitioner before that court within two weeks from today stating that he will unconditionally and peacefully surrender the premises within three months from today. RCR.No.176/2008 5 The Revision Petition is dismissed with the above directions. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE dpk