IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 14TH DECEMBER 2007 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA 1929 CRP.No. 2858 of 2001 ----------- ---------------------- RCA.24/2001 of I ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, KOZHIKODE RCP.156/1998 of PRL.M.C.-I, KOZHIKODE .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/TENANT: E.C.CHERIYA AHAMMED HAJI, S/O ALI KUNHI HAJI, ELAVANCHALIL HOUSE, KACHERI AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.A.P.CHANDRASEKHARAN (SR.) SMT.PRABHA R.MENON SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH SRI.M.KRISHNAKUMAR SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER/LANDLORD: CHEERUVEETTIL JAMEEL KADIRI, S/O KADIRI, KACHERI AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.MOHAMMED NIAS THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/12/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON C.M.P.NO.6015/2001 IN CRP 2858/2001 DISMISSED 14.12.2007 SD/-K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE SD/-K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ K.Balakrishnan Nair & K.P.Balachandran, JJ. ---------------------------- C.R.P.No. 2858 of 2001 ---------------------------- ORDER Balachandran, J. The tenant is the revision petitioner and the respondent is the landlord. R.C.P.No.156/98 was filed before the Rent Control Court, Kozhikode by the respondent against the petitioner seeking for an order of eviction invoking Section 11(4)(iii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The respondent purchased the scheduled building from the previous landlord under Document No.1427/96 of Sub Registry Office, West Hill on 7.5.1996, while the petitioner was in occupation of the scheduled building under the previous landlord. After the purchase, the petitioner attorned to the respondent. As the petitioner/tenant kept rents in arrears and the respondent/landlord was in bona CRP 2858/01 2 fide need of the scheduled building for his business purposes, he filed R.C.P.No.135/97 for eviction of the petitioner and that was allowed by the Rent Control Court. In the meanwhile, the petitioner constructed a three storied building near the scheduled building, having four rooms each in the three floors. Those rooms are reasonably sufficient for the purposes, for which, the petitioner had taken the scheduled building. The petitioner has no necessity to have continued possession of the scheduled building and he can very well shift his business to the newly constructed building in the same town. 2. The petitioner/tenant resisted the eviction so sought for. He contended that Item No.1 building was obtained by him from the previous owner, along with the land under mortgage and Item No.2 shed was constructed by him in the said land with the consent of the earlier landlord with liability to adjust the amount spent by him towards rent and CRP 2858/01 3 that was not fully adjusted. According to him, the building constructed by him is a three storied building with small rooms and they are now in possession of tenants and further, he has not completed the entire construction. It is submitted that he had taken the scheduled building for the purpose of starting an office for the bus service conducted by him and the shed is used for the purpose of garaging his bus. The present building, which has been constructed by him, is not sufficient enough to be used as garage and hence, it is incorrect to say that the petitioner/tenant has acquired the building reasonably sufficient for his purposes. 3. The respondent/landlord gave evidence as PW1 and on his side, Exhibit A1 was marked. The petitioner/tenant tendered evidence as RW1. The Commissioner, who submitted Exhibits C1 report and C2 plan, was examined as PW2 and through him, those reports were marked. The Rent Control Court CRP 2858/01 4 considered the evidence so adduced; found that the objections raised by the petitioner/tenant are unfounded; that the petitioner/tenant has acquired reasonably sufficient building for his purposes and he is, therefore, liable to be evicted under Section 11(4)(iii) of the Act and consequently, ordered eviction of the petitioner/tenant under Section 11(4)(iii) of the Act. The appeal filed by the tenant was dismissed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, confirming the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court under Section 11(4)(iii) of the Act. Hence this revision. 4. The contentions advanced by the petitioner/ tenant that there was mortgage in relation to Item No.1 from the previous owner; that Item No.2 shed is one constructed by him with the consent of the earlier landlord with liability to adjust the amount spent by him towards rent and that was not fully adjusted, etc. were all contentions that were raised and considered in R.C.P.No.135/97 filed CRP 2858/01 5 under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act in relation to the very same buildings. The Rent Controller allowed the said Rent Control Petition under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act. Appeal filed by the tenant therefrom was dismissed, confirming the order of eviction passed both under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act. The revision filed before this Court as C.R.P.No. 1837/02 was also dismissed by this Court on 4.12.2007 finding that the orders passed by the authorities below are legal, proper and regular and that no interference is called for in revision under Section 20 of the Act. 5. It is vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Item No.1 room bearing Door No.5/1238 is being used as the office of the transport service conducted by the petitioner and that Item No.2 shed bearing Door No.5/1239 is used by him as garage for the bus and though he has constructed a three storied building CRP 2858/01 6 with four rooms each in the three floors, none of those rooms can be used as a garage and that therefore, it is incorrect to say that under Section 11(4)(iii) of the Act, the respondent is entitled to an order of eviction on the ground that the petitioner has constructed a building reasonably sufficient for his purposes. 6. It is worthy to note that when it is the admitted case that a three storied building has been constructed by the petitioner, one room therein can be used as his office. The contention that the building so constructed is not in such a fashion so as to use one room as garage is not a contention that can be countenanced, as the petitioner was putting up the building investing funds to suit his own needs and his not providing a garage without converting one or two rooms in the ground floor into a garage, cannot be a ground to contend that the building constructed by him does not take in a garage for the bus and therefore, he CRP 2858/01 7 is not liable to be evicted from Item No.2 shed, invoking Section 11(4)(iii) of the Act. Further, the authorities below have found that the petitioner has not adduced any evidence to establish that he is garaging vehicles in Item No.2 shed. The concurrent orders of eviction so passed by the authorities below, in the circumstances, do not suffer any infirmity and the orders are legal, proper and regular and no interference by this Court invoking the jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Act is called for. This revision, in the circumstances, is devoid of merit. In the result, we dismiss this revision petition. (K.Balakrishnan Nair, Judge) 14th December, 2007 (K.P.Balachandran, Judge) tkv CRP 2858/01 8 K.Balakrishnan Nair & K.P.Balachandran, JJ. ----------------------- C.R.P.No.2858 of 2001 ----------------------- ORDER