IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 14TH MARCH 2008 / 24TH PHALGUNA 1929 RCRev..No. 68 of 2008() ----------------------- RCA.112/2003 of III ADDL. DISTRICT COURT/RCAA, ERNAKULAM RCP.163/2000 of ADDL.M.C.EKM (RENT CONTROL) .................... REVISION PETITIONER-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------------------- USMAN, XXXII/636, VELLAKKAL BUILDING, THRIKKAKARA NORTH VILLAGE, NEAR EDAPPALLY TOLL, EDAPPALLY,KOCHI-24. BY ADV. SRI.V.B.UNNIRAJ SRI.M.P.SREEKRISHNAN SMT.SHAHNA KARTHIKEYAN SRI.V.ARUN RESPONDENT: APPELLANT-PETITIONER: ---------------------------------- DR. V.A.ABDUL LATHEEF, S/O. LATE ABDUL RAHIMAN, VELLAKKAL HOUSE, EDAPPALLY, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV.SRI.S.VIDYASAGAR FOR CAVEATOR THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------- R.C.R. NOS. 68, 69 & 70/2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated 14th March, 2008. ORDER Balakrishnan Nair, J. These revisions are filed by the tenants, challenging the judgments of the appellate authority in R.C.A. Nos. 112/2003, 116/2003 and 111/2003 respectively. Those appellate orders arise out of the decision of the Rent Controller in R.C.P.Nos.163/2000, 16/2000 and 162/2000 respectively. Eviction in all these cases was sought, inter alia, under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The Rent Controller rejected the claim of the landlord regarding the bona fide need. The findings under the first and second provisos to Section 11(3) were in favour of the landlord. As a result, the claim of the landlord for eviction of the petition schedule buildings under Section 11(3), so that he can construct a hospital building there after demolishing the old building, was found against and the Rent Control Petitions were dismissed. The scheduled buildings concerned in theses cases RCR NOS.68,69 & 70/08 2 are rooms, which are part of a line building. The landlord is a doctor, who is practising at Muvattupuzha. He is a native of Edappally. So, he wanted to start a hospital in his native place and for that he wants to get vacant possession of the petition schedule buildings, demolish them and construct a hospital building there. The grounds taken under other sub-sections of Section 11 were also found in favour of the tenants by the Rent Controller. 2. On appeal, the appellate authority reversed the finding of the Rent Controller regarding the bona fide need and allowed eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act. The grounds raised under Section 11(4)(i) and 11(4)(iii) were affirmed by the appellate authority also. 3. In these cases, the revision petitioners mainly canvassed the correctness of the finding of the appellate authority under Section 11(3). The learned counsel for the revision petitioners contended that the scheduled buildings being rooms in a line building and the southernmost room of the line building being owned by another brother of the landlord, it is impossible to demolish the balance portion of the line building. Therefore, the finding of the appellate authority in favour of the landlord is untenable and the same is liable to be reversed. 4. We perused the Commissioner's report, which was made available to us by the learned counsel for the landlord. We notice that in the line RCR NOS.68,69 & 70/08 3 building only the southernmost room belongs to one of the brothers of the landlord. Therefore, we find no difficulty in demolishing the balance portion and constructing a new building there. Going by the materials on record, the landlord has already obtained building permit and also got the plan approved. In view of the above position, the contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners that it is impossible to demolish a portion of the line building and construct a new building there, cannot be accepted. We also notice that the roof of the southernmost room is constructed with concrete and therefore, without damaging that room, the remaining portion of the building can be demolished. 5. Finally, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners prayed for some time to vacate the tenanted premises. We heard the learned counsel for the landlord also on this point. 6. Having regard to the facts of the case, the revision petitioners are granted three months' time from today to vacate the tenanted premises, on condition they file an unconditional undertaking before the execution court, agreeing to vacate the premises within three months from today. They shall also pay the arrears of rent, if any, remaining unpaid within one month from today. The undertaking in this regard shall be filed before the execution court within three weeks from today. Subject to the above RCR NOS.68,69 & 70/08 4 direction concerning the grant of three months' time to vacate the premises, the Rent Control Revisions are dismissed. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. Nm/