IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 21ST DECEMBER 2010 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 RCRev..No. 419 of 2010() ------------------------ RCA.12/2009 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, TRIVANDRUM RCP.24/2007 of I ADDL.M.C.,TRIVANDRUM .................... REVISION PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: -------------------- V.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, KUNJU VEEDU, KAITHAMUKKU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.RAM MOHAN.G. SRI.G.P.SHINOD SRI.MANU V. SRI.P.GOVIND RESPONDENT(S)/APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS. --------------- 1. SHAMIL DAS, D/O. DEVAMMA DAS, DEEPAK HOUSE, KOCHAR ROAD, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DEVAMMA DAS, DEEPAK HOUSE, KOCHAR ROAD, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM (DEAD) THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No.419 OF 2010 ------------------------ Dated this the 21st day of December, 2010 O R D E R Balakrishnan, J. The tenant has come up in revision against an order passed under Section 11(4)(iv) of the Act. The claim was made under Section 11(3) of the Act also, but the order was confined to Section 11 (4)(iv) alone. The landlady contended that she intends to reconstruct the building and for that purpose she has the required plan, licence and also the financial capacity to re- build. 2. The tenant opposed the claim contending that the petition is filed only as a ruse for eviction and that the landlady has not produced the plan showing sufficient space to be alloted to the tenant for enabling him to install the flour mill which is now being conducted by the tenant in the petition schedule building. The Rent Controller disallowed the claim not only under Section 11(3) but also under Section 11(4)(iv) of the Act. 3. The learned Appellate Authority has found that the RCR.No.419/2010 2 need for reconstruction of the building projected by the landlady is bonafide and that all the ingredients required under Section 11 (4)(iv) have been satisfied. But, the Appellate Authority found that in Ext.A1 plan produced by the landlady office space was marked out which according to the landlady can be allotted to the tenant to install the flour mill. It has to be satisfied whether a flour mill can be installed therein. Hence, the learned Appellate Authority remanded the matter to the trial court with certain directions. 4. Sri.Ram Mohan G., learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/tenant, contended that the sole idea of the landlady is to throw out the tenant as is evident from the fact that Ext.A1 plan produced by the landlady is only of a residential complex wherein no provision has been made for housing the flour mill of the tenant. The only area provided in Ext.A1 is an office room, which according to the revision petitioner, cannot be used for installing the flour mill. 5. The learned counsel submits that this was not an offer made by the landlady, but only a direction issued by the Appellate Authority. However, it is seen that the learned RCR.No.419/2010 3 Appellate Authority has analysed the evidence in entirety and found that the landlady has sufficient financial capacity to rebuild and also plan and licence from the Corporation. The fact that this building is not abutting any road and that there is only a narrow way leading to the building also has been projected by the tenant as a ground to contend that the building as proposed by the landlady cannot be constructed and that if the flour mill is allowed to be run in the portion of the ground floor of a four storied building, it will be creating nuisance to the occupants of the several rooms or flats in the building. These are materials which must have been taken note of by the authorities while issuing the plan and licence. No such objection was seen to have been raised before the authorities. 6. The main grievance of the revision petitioner is that plan showing the allocation of the required area for putting up a flour mill in the ground floor of the building cannot be obtained and in such an event, it would cause irreparable injury to the tenant. The learned Appellate Authority has actually remanded the matter to the Rent Control Court, to enable the petitioner to produce a revised plan providing a suitable accommodation RCR.No.419/2010 4 to the tenant in the reconstructed building so as to enable him to conduct a flour mill. The tenant was also given opportunity to adduce further evidence in the matter. Since the interest of the tenant has already been safeguarded by the learned Appellate Authority, we do not find any reason to interfere with the finding so entered by the learned Appellate Authority. 7. We would clarify that in case the claim is to be allowed under Section 11(4)(iv) before ordering eviction under Section 11(4)(iv), a revised approved plan should be produced by the landlords showing the location of the area to put up the flour mill and the learned Rent Controller should ensure that required area is provided for accommodating the tenant to conduct a flour mill in the said building. Since we do not find any ground to interfere with the order of remand passed by the Appellate Authority, this revision is only to be dismissed. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE dpk