IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 8TH ASWINA 1930 RCRev..No. 210 of 2008() ------------------------ RCA.15/2005 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, PARAVUR RCP.22/2003 of MUNSIFF COURT,ALUVA .................... REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS ------------------------------- 1. BASHEER, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O. KOCHUNNY, KAVANATTU HOUSE, VENNALA DESOM COCHIN CORPORATION. 2. HASSAN, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. KOCHUNNY, KAVANATTU HOUSE, VENNALA DESOM, COCHIN CORPORATION. BY ADV. SRI.A.BALAGOPALAN SRI.A.RAJAGOPALAN SMT.T.LAKSHMI SRI.K.SANEESH KUMAR RESPONDENT: RESPONDENT ------------------------- DR.GEORGE, S/O. ABRAHAM, AGED 62 YEARS, VADAKKUMCHERRI HOUSE, ALUVA KARA, ALUVA WEST VILLAGE. ADV. SRI.V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR) SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE KIZHAKKAMBALAM THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/09/2008, ALONG WITH RCR NO.217 OF 2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A.NO.1913/2008 IN R.C.R No.210/2008 DISMISSED. SD/-P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE SD/-T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE 30/09/2008 \\TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE P.R.Raman & T.R. Ramachandran Nair, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.C.R. Nos.210 & 217 of 2008 - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 30th day of September, 2008. O R D E R Ramachandran Nair, J. These revision petitions have been filed by the tenants in a petition for eviction filed under the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short 'the Act'). They are aggrieved by the common judgment in R.C.A.Nos.15/2005 and 17/2005 of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, North Parur. Since common questions arise for decision, we dispose of the matters by this common judgment. 2. The landlord sought eviction under Sections 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(4)(i) of the Act. The Rent Control Court accepted the case of the landlord and allowed eviction. 3. Shortly stated, the need put forth by the landlord is for the purpose of construction of a hospital in Psychiatry after demolishing the existing building. He is a doctor by profession and employed in America and his wife is also in the same profession. He wants to come back and settle at his native place for starting the hospital in his property. The sub-lease alleged is on the plea that the first petitioner in R.C.R.No.210/2008 sub-let the room RCR 210 & 217/2008 -2- rented out to him to the second petitioner therein who is his brother. The sub-lessee had converted the two rooms by demolishing a common wall and put up a common entrance and he is in possession of the rooms in question. 4. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of P.Ws.1 and 2 and RW.1. Exts.C1 and C1(a) are the commission report and rough sketch and the Commissioner was examined. 5. We have heard learned counsel on either side, as the landlord appeared on caveat. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there are no bonafides in the need alleged; that actually the landlord wants to reconstruct the building, but he has not invoked Section 11(4)(iv) of the Act to deny the right of re-option to the tenants. It is submitted that there is no sub-lease as such, as separate businesses are being conducted in the two rooms. It is further pointed out that the landlord has not produced any plan before the court below in support of the case that he wants to construct a hospital. Learned counsel for the landlord submitted that going by the Commission report, it can be seen that the second petitioner in R.C.R.No.210/2008 who is the sole petitioner in R.C.R.No.217/2008, is in possession of the rooms in question and he is conducting business. The two rooms have been converted into one by demolishing the common wall and there is only one entrance to the rooms in question. It is submitted on the RCR 210 & 217/2008 -3- basis of the evidence available that both authorities below have found that he is in possession of the rooms and therefore being a finding of fact, in exercise of the powers of revision, it cannot be interfered with. It is also pointed out that the landlord has got property having an extent of 24 cents wherein the petition schedule building is situated and after demolishing the building, he intends to construct a building to commence a hospital in Psychiatry. Necessary plan and licence will be obtained from the local authority once he gets vacant possession of the building. 6. The landlord is a doctor. He wants to construct a hospital after demolishing the building now in existence. The bonafide need alleged to construct a hospital after returning back to India and after settling in his native place, cannot be said to be a ruse for eviction. He has got 24 cents of land available in which the petition schedule building is situated and it abuts the main road. The plea that an application for eviction ought to have been filed under Section 11(4)(iv) of the Act, was rejected by the authorities below on the ground that the entire area occupied by the building with the additional space to the extent of 24 cents is to be utilised for construction of the hospital. The authorities have thus found that the argument raised by the petitioners that actually a petition for eviction for reconstruction alone could have been maintainable is therefore not correct. It is up to the RCR 210 & 217/2008 -4- landlord to decide whether he has to construct a new building after demolishing the existing building. The existing building is an old one. 7. Regarding the sub lease alleged, there is clear finding that the first petitioner in R.C.R.No.210/2008 has parted with possession. It is submitted that the brother is conducting business for him, but no licence was produced. By demolition of the common wall the tenants have converted the two rooms into one and the admitted possession by the brother who is the tenant in respect of only one room shows that there is clear sub-letting. The existing building is an old one. 8. The authorities have found that the tenants could not prove any of the limbs of the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act to show that there are no other building available in the locality and that they are mainly depending upon the income from the business in the schedule rooms in questions. We find no reason to interfere with the said finding also. The grounds for eviction have been clearly found in favour of the landlord. The view taken is plausible. Hence, the revision petition is dismissed. 9. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners sought for a larger time to vacate the rooms and learned counsel for the landlord also submitted that he will have to get the plan and licence for the construction of the new building and some time can be granted for vacating the rooms. It is also RCR 210 & 217/2008 -5- assured that he will obtain the plan within the period of six months before the tenants vacate from the rooms. This is recorded. However, the petitioners are granted six months time from today to vacate the premises on condition that they file an undertaking in the form of affidavit separately before the Rent Control Court undertaking to vacate the premises unconditionally on or before the expiry of six months from today and also to deposit the arrears of rent, if any, due within three weeks from today and continue to pay the monthly rent till the premises are vacated. The affidavit shall be filed within the above said period of three weeks from today. The petitioners shall continue to pay an amount equivalent to the rent payable, towards compensation for use and occupation, till possession is surrendered. If any of the conditions aforesaid is violated, then the order of eviction will become enforceable at once. ( P.R.Raman, Judge.) (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/