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 23RD MARCH 2011 / 2ND CHAITHRA 1933 RCREV..NO. 97 OF 2006(F/D) ------------------------------- RCA.172/1998 OF RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY ADDL.DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC)-II, THALASSERY RCP.220/1997 OF RENT CONTROL COURT( ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT), KANNUR .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT ---------------------------------------------------------- SRI.LAKSHMANAN.C.K, S/O.KUMARAN, AGED 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT KOZHIKODE AMSOM, DESOM. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.PAREETH RESPONDENT(S)/ RESPONDENT/PETITIONERS --------------------------------------------------------- N.KATHEEN, S/O.SAVAN, AGED 63 YEARS, `RAHIYA MANZIL', CHUNGAM, PAPPINISSERI, KANNUR DISTRICT. (DIED) ADDL. RESPONDENTS: 2. RABIA K, D/O N. KATHEEM, “RAHIYA MANZIL”, CHUNGAM, PAPPINISSERI, KANNUR. 3. SABIRA.K. -DO- 4. NAUSHAD -DO- 5. SHABEEB -DO- ADDL RESPONDENTS 2 TO 5 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 23.3.11 IN I.A.2566 OF 2008. ADV. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/03/2011 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.C.R. NO. 97 OF 2006 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 23rd day of March, 2011. 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 passed by the Rent Control Court under S.11(4)(3) of Act 2 of 1965. The facts have been almost correctly stated in the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority and in the order of the Rent Control Court and hence we do not venture to narrate the facts again. It was with reference to building having Door No.706/4 of Azhikode Panchayath that ground under S.11(4)(3) was invoked by the landlord. It became evident in the case that the petition schedule building was let out in the year 1963 R.C.R. NO. 97 OF 2006 -:2:- and building No.708 was taken five years thereafter. Though Mr.P.M. Pareeth, learned counsel for the revision petitioner addressed arguments on the various grounds mentioned in the revision memorandum, he gave more thrust to the following arguments. 2. The tenant came into possession of Door No.706 way back in 1968 but the landlord invoked eviction ground only in 1997. This will show that there is no sincerity about the landlord's case u/s 11(4)(iii). As Building No.706 is taken on lease at a time when the petition schedule room was already in the possession of the tenant, it is obvious that it was for the purpose of satisfying his additional needs that building No.706 was taken on lease. Hence it is not possible to say that building No.706 is reasonably sufficient for the requirements of the tenant. R.C.R. NO. 97 OF 2006 -:3:- 3. Lastly and more importantly it was argued that the ground u/s 11(4)(3) cannot be upheld for want of pleadings. It was pointed out that there is no averment for the landlord that building No.706 is reasonably sufficient for the tenant's requirements. 4. Mr.Jayesh Mohan Kumar, learned counsel for the landlord would oppose all the submissions of Mr.Pareeth. According to Mr.Jayesh Mohan Kumar, it was admitted and had become evident that the tenant is in possession of building No.706. It has also become evident that building No.706 is much bigger than the petition schedule building. When that is the situation, it is the tenant's burden to contend and prove that building No.706 is not reasonably sufficient for the tenant's requirements. No attempt is made by the tenant either to contend or prove that building No.706 is not reasonably sufficient for the tenant's requirements. No Commission is taken to prove the sufficiency of R.C.R. NO. 97 OF 2006 -:4:- building No.706. 5. Counsel on both sides cited various judicial precedents in support of their various arguments. We have very anxiously considered the submissions. True, as rightly argued by Mr.Jayesh Mohan Kumar, strict adherence to the rules of pleadings is not insisted upon in Rent Control proceedings. Pleadings in rent control proceedings are expected to be construed liberally and the concern of the Court should always be to ensure that no prejudice is caused to the opposite party due to any insufficiency in the pleadings. But this is a case where the landlord has not pleaded that the statutory eviction ground u/s 11(4)(3) exists. A reading of S.11 (4)(iii) will show that it is only when the tenant has already in his possession or comes into possession or put up a new building reasonably sufficient for the tenant's requirements in the same city, town or village that eviction ground u/s 11(4)(iii) is established. Just R.C.R. NO. 97 OF 2006 -:5:- because the tenant has come into possession of a building or is already in possession of a building or puts up another building, eviction ground will not be established. It is for the landlord to make necessary averments regarding existence of eviction ground u/s 11 (4)(iii). That is not being done in this case. 6. Now, coming to the merits of the matter, we find that the building having door No.706 is much bigger than the petition schedule building which is just 32 sq.ft. in extent. We also found from the evidence that it is practically the same business that the tenant is conducting in both these buildings. We feel that on merits the landlord has a very strong case but at the same time for want of pleadings we are unable to sustain the impugned judgment. It was for the tenant to adduce quality evidence in the form of report on the basis of inspection by an Advocate Commissioner and documentary evidence showing his requirements, and it R.C.R. NO. 97 OF 2006 -:6:- was for the tenant to prove that the building newly acquired is not reasonably sufficient for his requirement. We notice that such evidence is not adduced by the tenant. We feel an opportunity can be given to the landlord for amending his pleadings and the tenant for adducing further evidence. 7. The result of the above discussion is that the order of the Rent Control Court and the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority to the extent of the same pertains to eviction ground u/s 11(4)(iii) are set aside. RCP to the extent which relates to ground u/s 11 (4)(iii) is remanded to the Rent Control Court. That Court is directed to permit the landlord to amend the RCP for the purpose of incorporating a statement that building bearing door No.706 is reasonably sufficient for the tenant's requirement. If pleadings are amended that way, the Court will grant an opportunity to the tenant to raise counter pleadings. Immediately R.C.R. NO. 97 OF 2006 -:7:- thereafter RCP will be listed for trial. Both the sides will be permitted to adduce whatever further evidence they want to. The Rent Control Court will pass a revised order on the basis of the evidence already on record and further evidence which comes to be on record. If Commission application is filed by the tenant within a week of entering appearance before the Rent Control Court the same will be allowed by the Court. Parties will appear before the Rent Control Court on 2.4.2011. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,JUDGE. N.K. BALAKRISHNAN,JUDGE. ul/-