IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARILAL WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 18TH KARTHIKA 1933 RCRev..No. 343 of 2011 ------------------------------ RCA.37/2010 of DISTRICT COURT, KOTTAYAM RCOP.46/1999 of PRL.M.C., KOTTAYAM ...................................... .................... REVISION PETITIONER: ---------------------------------- ISSAC T.YOUSAFF, THANNICKAL HOUSE, S.H. MOUNT P.O, KOTTAYAM. BY ADVS. SRI.S.VINOD BHAT SRI.LEGITH T.KOTTAKKAL RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. M.A.SUMATHY NEELAKANDAN, W/O.LATE P.K.NEELAKANDAN, KANDANTHURUTHEL HOUSE,MANGANAM P.O, KOTTAYAM. PIN 686 018. 2. K.N.BAJI, S/O.LATE P.K.NEELAKANDAN, KANDANTHURUTHEL HOUSE, MANGANAM P.O, KOTTAYAM PIN 686 018. 3. K.N.BAIJU, S/O.LATE P.K.NEELAKANDAN, KANDANTHURUTHEL HOUSE, MANGANAM P.O,KOTTAYAM PIN 686 018. BY ADV. SRI.M.NARENDRA KUMAR THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: STU PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.HARILAL,JJ ------------------------------------------------- R.C.R No.343 of 2011 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of November, 2011 O R D E R Pius C. Kuriakose, J Under challenge in this revision by the landlord is the judgment of the rent control appellate authority confirming the order of the rent control court directing the landlord to allot a particular room having an extent of 160 sq.ft. (herein after referred to as the western room for sake of convenience) to the respondent tenant in satisfaction of his right to re-induction in terms of third proviso to Section 11(4)(4). Various grounds are raised assailing the judgment of the rent control appellate authority and the order of the rent control court, which was confirmed by the appellate authority. 2. We have heard the submissions of the Sri.S.Vinod Bhat, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and also Sri.M.Narendra Kumar the learned counsel for the respondent tenant. Drawing our attention to the original judgment of the rent control appellate authority in the R.C.A (which was in fact a common judgment pertaining to the cases of two other tenants R.C.R No.343 of 2011 2 also). Mr.S.Vinod Bhat submitted that the landlord is obliged on the terms of that judgment to re-allot portion of the re- constructed building in the first floor giving first option to the tenant. There is no obligation at all for the landlord either in terms of the above judgment which has attained finality or in terms of the 3rd proviso to Section 11(4)(4) to allot any particular room or particular portion in the first floor of the re-constructed building. The landlord in the first instance offered to the respondent a portion in the first floor having an extent of 150 Sq. ft. on the eastern side of the first floor of the building. That offer was not accepted by the respondent. Thereupon the landlord offered 250 sq.ft. in the first floor itself. Even the second offer was not accepted saying that though the extent offered is more the offered the portion of the building will not enjoy the frontage of the road. The order of the rent control court and the impugned judgment of the appellate authority directing the landlord to re-induct the respondent to the western room itself is illegal, irregular and improper being outside the limits of the right given to tenants under the third proviso to section 11(4)(4). In this particular case the obligation of the landlord is only to allot space in the first floor. R.C.R No.343 of 2011 3 3. As we noticed that the dispute lies in a narrow campus we directed both sides to explore the possibilities of settlement of the issue. It was reported to us that the endeavour was unsuccessful. 4. Sri.M.Narendra Kumar, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the insistence of the tenant that he should get a room facing the main road in spite of the same being in the first floor is for a valid reason. It is a tailoring shop which the respondent proposes to conduct. The respondent was previously conducting tailoring shop in the ground floor if the building that was reconstructed. The respondent did not appeal against the direction of the rent control appellate authority that the entire ground floor of the newly constructed building can be utilised by the landlord, eventhough the landlord had given up their claims under Section 11(3), believing the assurance which was given at that time that it will be a suitable room which will be offered to the tenant in the first floor of the reconstructed building. In these days of fashion designing and tailoring it is absolutely necessary that finished garments should be exhibited, so that prospective customers who passes through the road can see the quality of the products of the tailor operating from the R.C.R No.343 of 2011 4 first floor room. It was submitted that it is the statutory right to the tenant to have more or less same facilities which he has having in the building from which was occupied by him as a tenant. He was in occupation of the ground floor portion which was easily accessible and visible all the the prospective customers who passed through the road. Unless it is ensured that the tenant is given a room which is visible to the present and prospective customers, the statutory right given to the tenant effected in terms of Section 11(4)(4) will be rendered meaningless. There is no illegality, irregularity or impropriety of the impugned judgment of the appellate authority warranting invocation of the rivisional jurisdiction under Section 20. 5. In reply Sri.Vinod Bhat submitted that the disinclination of the landlord to put the respondent in possession of the western room is the subject matter of the present rent control revision petition is on account of a genuine reason. The building is admittedly and evidently situated in a prime commercial locality of the ever growing Kottayam Town. In future it may become necessary for the landlord to put up one or two floors above in the existing floors. This will necessitate installation of a lift. The space occupied by the western room R.C.R No.343 of 2011 5 will have to be utilised for installing the lift. Sri.M.Narendra Kumar quickly retorted that the present argument based on a prospective relief is just an excuse to get away from the impugned judgment of the appellate authority. The room just behind the western road is already let out to a tenant, it is so found by the appellate authority submitted by the Narandra Kumar. He would lastly submit that the respondent is ready to take risk of being called upon to vacate the western room on the ground that the space occupied by that room is necessary for being utilised for installation of a lift once more floors are put up even the existing building. 6. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. We remind ourselves of the attenuated nature of our present jurisdiction under Section 20. This is a case where the statutory authorities have concurrently found that in order that there is meaningful compliance of the statutory re-induction right under third proviso to Section 11(4) (4) the respondent has to be given the western room in the first floor. On going through the statutory provisions and the various judicial precedents which have been rendered in the context of such provisions, we find that the tenant should be allowed to R.C.R No.343 of 2011 6 have more or less the same facilities in the reconstructed building as he was enjoying in the building where from he was evicted. It is in evidence that the respondents was in occupation of a ground floor room facing the main road. It is seen from the judgment of the appellate authority that eventhough the landlord did not press his claim under Section 11(3), the appellate authority directed that the entire ground floor of the reconstructed building can be utilised by the landlord. It is after directed so that the appellate authority directs further that the tenant should be provided space in the first floor. 7. We are of the view that though not in so many words what the appellate authority directed was the re-induction of the tenant into a portion of the first floor where he is able to enjoy more or less the facilities he was enjoying in the old building. The submission of Mr.M.Narendra Kumar that a tailor will have to exhibit the products to be viewed by customers present and prospective has some appeal to us. We record the submissions of Mr.M.Narendra Kumar made by him in the context of a future eventuality of the landlord needing to instal a lift. We do not find warrant for interference with the impugned judgment of the appellate authority within the contours of our jurisdiction under R.C.R No.343 of 2011 7 Section 20. 8. We also record the agreement entered into between the parties that for the western room rent will be paid at the rate of Rs.25/- per sq.ft. We record the submissions of Mr.S.Vinod Bhat that the works in the western room will be completed and room will be made ready for occupation within two months from today. We direct the execution Court to put off the execution proceedings by three months. The Rent Control Revision fails and will stand dismissed. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE K.HARILAL JUDGE ab