IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN MONDAY, THE 29TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 8TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 RCRev..No. 215 of 2008() ------------------------ RCA.26/2004 of i ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR RCP.3/2003 of PRL.M.C.,IRINJALAKUDA .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ JOSE, S/O.KARINKADA JOSEPH, OWNER AND PRESS OPERATOR, JOSE PRINTERS, CHERUMUKKU TEMPLE ROAD, IRINJALAKUDA TOWN MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.JIJO PAUL RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. NARAYANAN NAMBOODIRI, S/O.LATE ANIMANGALATHU MANAKKAL GOVINDAN IRINJALAKUDA TOWN, MANAVALASSERY VILLAGE MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 2. GOURI ANTHARJANAM, D/O. LATE ANIMANGALATHU MANAKKAL GOVINDAN IRINJALAKUDA TOWN, MANAVALASSERY VILLAGE MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 3. SAVITHRI ANTHARJANAM, DO.DO. 4. INDIRA ANTHARJANAM, DO.DO. 5. RAMA ANTHARJANAM, DO.DO. 6. SREEHARI MINOR, S/O.LATE DEVI ANTHARJANAM, D/O.LATE ANIMANGALATHU KANAKKAL GOVINDAN NAMBOODIRI, IRINJALAKUDA TOWN MANAVALASSERY VILLAGE, MANAVALASSERY TALUK, REP. BY GUATRDIAN AND FATHER, KRISHNAN NAMBOODIRI, KUZHIKKATTU MANAKKAL, IRINJALAKUDA TOWN, MANAVALASSERY VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 7. SREEPRIYA (MINOR), D/O.LATE DEVI ANTHARJANAM, D/O.LATE ANIMANGALATHU MANAKKAL GOVINDAN NAMBOODIRI, IRINJALAKUDA TOWN MANAVALASSERY VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK REP. BY GURDIAN AND FATHER KRISHNAN NAMBOODIRI. DO.DO. 8. UMA (MINOR), DO.DO. R1 TO 8 BY ADVS. SRI.RENJITH THAMPAN SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29.11.2010 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: VK PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. ----------------------------------- R.C.R.No.215 OF 2008 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of November, 2010 O R D E R ~~~~~~~ Pius C. Kuriakose, J. In this revision, filed under Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965 by the tenant, he challenges orders of eviction concurrently passed by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority under Sections 11(3) and 11(4)(iv) of Act 2 of 1965. Petition schedule building is a room in which the petitioner is conducting a printing press. The need projected by the landlord is that he wants to reconstruct the building and also to occupy the same for the purpose of conducting a medical shop by his wife. The Rent Control Court ordered eviction under 11(3) as well as 11 (4)(iv). It was specifically ordered by the Rent Control Court that the revision petitioner/tenant is entitled to be inducted into a portion of the reconstructed building, which is a shopping complex. The Appellate Authority confirmed the above order. The grievance which is voiced before us by Sri.Jijo Paul, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, is that the Appellate R.C.R.No.215/2008 2 Authority has not specifically reiterated the direction of the Rent Control Court that the tenant will be inducted into a portion of the reconstructed building. 2. We are of the view that when the Rent Control Appellate Authority has refused to interfere with the order of the Rent Control Court to the extent it pertains to 11(3) and 11(4)(iv) it is unnecessary that the tenant's right for reinduction under the 3rd proviso to Section 11(4)(iv) is specifically reiterated. However,considering the grievance voiced by the revision petitioner, even as we dismiss the RCR, we clarify that the revision petitioner is entitled to be reinducted into a portion of the reconstructed building in terms of the 3rd proviso to Section 11(4)(iv). In all other respects, the judgment of the Appellate Authority stands confirmed. (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) (P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE) ps