IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN MONDAY, THE 11TH OCTOBER 2010 / 19TH ASWINA 1932 RCRev..No. 271 of 2010() ------------------------ RCA.66/2008 of I RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHROITY, ERNAKULAM RCP.77/2006 of RENT CONTROL COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... REV.PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------------- THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE,ERNAKULAM NORTH,KOCHI-18. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT /PETITIONER ------------------------------------- M.P.T.ABDUL JABBAR,S/O.K.K. KUNJAHAMMAD, RESIDING AT CC.39/3708, MANIKKIRI ROAD, ERNAKULAM,KOCHI-16. ADV. SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE FOR CAVEATER THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/10/2010, ALONG WITH RCR NO. 258 OF 2010 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.Nos. 258 & 271 OF 2010 ------------------------ Dated this the 5th day of October, 2010 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The tenants are the revision petitioners. The challenge in these revisions under Section 20 is an order of eviction concurrently passed against them by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority on the ground of reconstruction under Section 11(4)(iv). The building is situated at Pallikumkku junction on M.G.Road which is undoubtedly the most important commercial thoroughfare in Cochin city. 2. On going through the records, we find that the findings concurrently entered by the statutory authorities that the condition of the building is such that it warrants reconstruction, that the landlord respondent has the ability to carry out the reconstruction, that the landlord has obtained the requisite plan and licence from the local authority and that the proposal is not a mere pretext for eviction have been entered on the basis of legal evidence which is available on record. Having regard to the RCR.No.258 & 271/2010 2 well defined contours of the revisional jurisdiction under Section 20, we do not find any warrant for interference with those findings. In fact, learned counsel for the revision petitioners Sri.M.K.Chandramohan Das and Sri. George Cherian in their submissions before us would give thrust to what according to them was a genuine grievance of their clients. Both of them submitted that if reconstruction is carried out as per Ext.B1 plan, the statutory right of induction, to which tenants are entitled in view of the 3rd proviso to Section 11 (4)(iv), will not be fully available to the revision petitioners. Both the learned counsel requested that a specif direction be issued by us to the effect that both the revision petitioners are allotted equal area, as they are presently enjoying in the building, after reconstruction subject to their liability to pay fair rent. 3. Sri.A.Mohammed Mustaque, learned counsel for the respondent landlord, submitted that the tenants are not justified in insisting on exact equivalence in the matter of area to be reallotted after reconstruction is over. The learned counsel referred to the judicial precedents also in support of his argument. After hearing the counsel for some time, on RCR.No.258 & 271/2010 3 28/9/2010 we passed the following orders; “Heard the counsel for some time. We feel that some more clarity is required on the question as to how much area will be available in the ground floor and the first floor of the proposed new building. Sri.Chandra Mohandnas learned counsel for the revision petitioners submits that the Town Planning Officer of the Cochin Corporation or any other officer authorised by the Town Planning Commission will file before this Court an affidavit or statement showing the correct carpet area which will be available in the ground floor and the first floor of the new building proposed to be constructed as per Ext.B1 plan. Under the above circumstances, it is ordered that affidavit or statement as mentioned above is filed before this Court by the authorised officer of the Cochin RCR.No.258 & 271/2010 4 Corporation showing the exact area which is available in the ground and first floor of the building proposed to be constructed as per Ext.B1. In the meanwhile, we direct the Execution Court to keep in abeyance the proceedings for execution.” 4. Pursuant to the above order, on behalf of the Town Planning Officer of the Corporation of Cochin, the Building Inspector filed a report before this Court. Both sides were heard with reference to the above report. It is conceded at the Bar that presently Co-optex Ltd., the revision petitioner in RCR No.258/2010 is in possession of 134.30 sq. mts. of carpet area in the ground floor and that the Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., the revision petitioner in RCR No. 271/2010, is in possession of an equal area but in the first floor. Ext.X1 referred to in the report is the plan on the basis of which the reconstruction is going to be made. Having made a very careful perusal of Ext.X1 and keeping in mind the judicial precedents governing the question of the RCR.No.258 & 271/2010 5 tenants' eligibility for reinduction under 3rd proviso to Section 11 (4)(iv), we are of the view that the revision petitioner in RCR No. 258/2010 viz. The Tamil Nadu Handloom Weavers Co-operative Society Limited are eligible for reinduction into all rooms in the ground floor of the new proposed new building shown as per Ext.X1 except room Nos. 1 and 2 and and also for an additional area of 25 sq. mets in the first floor. Similarly, we are satisfied that the revision petitioner in RCR No.271/2010, the Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., are also eligible for induction into the balance area in the first floor of the building after reconstruction. 5. We notice another submission which was made before us by Mr.Chandramohan Das, learned counsel for the revision petitioner RCR No. 258/2010. The submission was that the 25.sq.mts area which will be provided in the first floor, should be accessible from the ground floor rooms which are being allotted to the revision petitioner in that case. The learned counsel also submitted that the landlord should be directed to permit the revision petitioner to have necessary arrangements made in one of the ground floor rooms such as construction of a suitable staircase or ladder for the purpose of accessing the first floor RCR.No.258 & 271/2010 6 portion which is allotted. Mr.Chandramohan Das even suggested that service of an architect mentioned by him be allowed to be taken. We are of the view that the above request of Mr.Chandramohan Das can be accepted to a certain extent. 6. The result of the above discussion is that the judgment of the Appellate Authority is modified to the following extent; i). Order of eviction passed by the appellate authority is confirmed. ii).The respondent/landlord shall complete reconstruction of the ground and first floors of the building proposed as per Ext.X1 within a period of one year of getting possession of the petition schedule premises. Once reconstruction is completed, revision petitioner in RCR No.258/2010 will be reinducted into all rooms in the ground floor except room numbers 1 and 2 and also will be provided with 25 sq. mets of area in the first floor above the rooms in the ground floor which are being allotted to the revision petitioner. Similarly the entire balance area in the first floor will be allotted to the revision petitioner in RCR NO.271/2010. ii). Both the revision petitioners will be liable to pay fair rent for the premises into which they are reinducted. The RCR.No.258 & 271/2010 7 revision petitioner in RCR No.271/2010 should be permitted by all concerned to have necessary arrangements made in the ground floor rooms, which are being allotted to them, for the purpose of accessing the portion in the first floor which is also being allotted to them conveniently. Necessary permission in this regard will be obtained by the revision petitioners at their costs and this will be solely within their responsibility. ii). The revision petitioners shall surrender the premises in their possession at the latest by 31st December 2010. iii) The Corporation of Cochin will notice this order and favourably consider application if any submitted by the respondent for extension of validity of Ext.X1 already sanctioned by the Corporation. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE dpk