IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH JUNE 2011 / 18TH JYAISHTA 1933 RCRev..No. 205 of 2011() ------------------------ RCA.105/2008 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, KOZHIKODE RCP.70/2007 of RENT CONTROL COURT.,KOZHIKODE-I .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------------------------------ K.P.GURUDAS, S/O.PANDURANJAN CHETTIYAR, AGED 50 YEARS, 18/700 RAM NIVAS, KASABA AMSOM AND DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.RAMKUMAR SMT.ANITHA MENON RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS -------------------------------------- 1. MANDAMMATT CHETTIPURAYIL SARADA, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, W/O.AYANIKATT CHATHU MASTER, PANTHEERANKAVU, KODAL AMSOM, KALLAMADAM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK - 673 001. 2. AYANIKKATT UNNIRAJA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, S/O.AYANIKATT CHATHU MASTER, DO. DO. PIN - 673 001. 3. AYANIKKATT PRASANNA MOHAN, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, S/O.AYANIKATT CHATHU MASTER, DO. DO. PIN - 673 001. 4. AYANIKKATT PRAMADA KUMARI, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, D/O.AYANIKATT CHATHU MASTER, DO. DO. PIN - 673 001. 5. AYANIKKATT DEVI KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, D/O.AYANIKATT CHATHU MASTER, DO. DO. PIN - 673 001. 6. AYANIKKATT DAMANA KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, D/O.AYANIKATT CHATHU MASTER, DO. DO. PIN - 673 001. 7. AYANIKKATT VINOD KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, D/O.AYANIKATT CHATHU MASTER, DO. DO. PIN - 673 001. 8. AYANIKKATT BALA THILAKAN, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, D/O.AYANIKATT CHATHU MASTER, DO. DO. PIN - 673 001. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No. 205 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 8th day of June, 2011 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The landlord is in revision. He challenges the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority declining eviction on the ground under sub section (3) of Section 11 confirming the order passed against him by the Rent Control Court. The landlord had invoked the ground of arrears of rent also. The eviction order was passed under that ground, but that order is always liable to be vacated by the tenant making requisite deposits and invoking Section 11 (2)(c). 2. In this revision we have to be concerned only with the correctness of the judgment of the Appellate Authority finally declining eviction on the ground under Sub Section (3) of Section 11. The need projected in the rent control petition is that the building (two rooms in the ground floor of a two storied RCR.No.205/2011 2 building) is required for the landlord's son Radhakrishnan for the purpose of conducting “ bio technology unit”. The bona fides of the need was disputed by the tenants. The tenants also contended that they are entitled for the protection of the second proviso to sub section (3) of section 11 mainly on three reasons. (i). The son for whom the building is required did not adduce oral evidence. (ii). During the pendency of the proceedings a portion of the first floor of the building fell vacant and if the need was bona fide, the landlord could have accompanied his son in that building. (iii). The landlord's plea regarding the purpose for which the building was required is vague as the details were not furnished. 3. Even though the landlord preferred an appeal, the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority on making a reappraisal of the evidence confirmed the findings of the Rent Control Court and dismissed the appeal. 4. In this revision under Section 20, various grounds are raised assailing the judgment of the Appellate Authority and Sri.P.K.Ramkumar learned counsel for the revision petitioner addressed us on the basis of those grounds. Mr.Ramkumar RCR.No.205/2011 3 requested that the rent control petition be remanded to the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority giving opportunity to the revision petitioner/landlord to examine his son who is in India presently. According to him, if this court feels there is some inadequacy in the pleadings of the landlord, the landlord may be permitted to amend the pleadings. Mr.Ramkumar submitted that vacancy of the first floor portion was an event subsequent to the commencement of the rent control petition. According to him, the portion which fell vacant had an extent of just 260 sq.feet unlike the petition schedule premises which had a total extent of about 500 sq.feet. The landlord's need, at any rate, cannot be accomplished by utilising the first floor portion which fell vacant. 5. We have given our anxious consideration to the submission of Mr.Ramkumar. We have gone through the judgment of the Appellate Authority as well as the order of the Rent Control Court. We remind ourselves of the contours of our jurisdiction under Section 20 which is revisional in nature. We are in agreement with the statutory authorities who say that the pleading of the landlord as regards the activity proposed to be RCR.No.205/2011 4 conducted by the landlord's son after getting eviction is not sufficient and has caused some prejudice to the tenants. At least minimum details of the proposed bio technology unit should have been pleaded, so that the tenants could meet them in their pleadings. The landlord, who was examined as PW1, had nothing to do with bio technology. The only person, who could have given authentic evidence regarding the proposed activity(which Mr.Ramkumar now tells us is the conduct of a bio technology laboratory) was Radhakrishnan, the landlord's son. We feel, as the statutory authorities felt, that non examination of Radhakrishnan in the facts and circumstances which obtain in the rent control petition will be fatal to the rent control petition. We are not inclined to remand the matter for enabling the landlord to examine Radhakrishnan, as a remand without amendment of pleadings may be futile exercise. We feel that the petitioner/landlord can be permitted to institute a fresh rent control petition invoking the same ground and any other grounds which may be presently available to the landlord. This in our opinion will not cause prejudice to either of the parties. RCR.No.205/2011 5 6. In this connection we may observe that the explanation offered by Mr.Ramkumar for his client not utilising the first floor premises, which fell vacant, appears to be convincing. It is open to the landlord to offer this explanation while raising pleadings in the prospective rent control petition. 7. The result of the above discussion is as follows; The rent control petition is dismissed confirming the judgment of the Appellate Authority. However, permission is granted to the revision petitioner/landlord to institute a fresh rent control petition invoking the ground under sub section (3) of Section 11 and any other ground which may be available to the landlord presently. If a fresh rent control petition is filed by the landlord within one month from today, the rent control court will invite pleadings , try and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible and at any rate conforming strictly to time frame set under Section 24 of Act 2 of 1965. The Rent Control Court while taking decision in that rent control petition will not be influenced by the findings entered against the landlord under the impugned judgment and the impugned order of the Rent Control Court. The landlord will sent a copy of this judgment by registered post RCR.No.205/2011 6 Acknowledgment Due to the tenants as and when he obtains the same. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE dpk