IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2011 / 3RD CHAITHRA 1933 RCRev..No. 124 of 2011() ------------------------ RCA.32/2008 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY ALAPPUZHA. RCP.27/2002 of PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF,ALAPPUZHA .................... PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS 1 TO 6/CR. PETITIONERS 1 TO 6 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SANKARA KAIMAL, PEROTHU HOUSE, SANATHANAM WARD, ALAPPUZHA. 2. B. RENJINI, D/O. MADHAVAN NAIR OF DO- 3. B.VASANTHA OF DO- 4. B. RATNAMMA OF DO- 5. MURALI KAIMAL OF DO 6. RADHAKRISHNAN OF DO BY ADV. SRI.N.ASHOK KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------- MARIAMMA JOB, W/O. V.Z JOB, AGED 86 YEARS, VAIKATHUKARAN HOUSE, CULLEN ROAD, ALAPUZHA REPRESENTED BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, V.J.ZACHARIA, VAIKATHUKARAN HOUSE, CULLEN ROAD, ALAPUZHA.P.O., PIN-688001. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No.124 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 24th day of March, 2011 O R D E R Balakrishnan, J. The tenants are in revision. They challenge the order of eviction concurrently passed under section 11(4)(iv) of the Act. It was contended by the landlady that the petition schedule building, which is a shop room, and the remaining shop rooms under the same roof are in a dilapidated condition and that the entire structure has to be pulled down for reconstruction. The landlady contended that a multi storyed shopping complex is intended to be constructed and for that purpose, this shop room and the adjacent shop rooms are to be demolished. 2. The revision petitioners/tenants resisted the rent control petition contending that there is no bona fides in the claim and that the landlady is not having the requisite fund for RCR.No.124/2011 2 reconstruction of the building. It was also contended that the landlady is aged 80 years and so it is unlikely that she would reconstruct the building. 3. Before the Rent Control Court Exts.A1 to A89 and Exts.B1 to B10 were marked. The landlady was examined as PW1. The commission reports, Mahazar, sketch, the report submitted by Expert Engineer and plan were marked as Exts. C1 to C5 respectively. Two witnesses were examined on the side of the tenants. The Rent Control Court after analysing the evidence found that the building requires reconstruction as it is in a dilapidated condition. The petition schedule room is one of the twenty line rooms . The landlady proposed to reconstruct the building by utilising the land situated behind the petition schedule building. The landlady has produced plan and estimate. She has given evidence to prove her capacity to reconstruct. Ext.A -89 plan shows that provision has been made to accommodate the tenants. So, relying on the evidence adduced on behalf of the landlady eviction was ordered. 4. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority also concurred with the order passed by the Rent Control Court. RCR.No.124/2011 3 5 Sri.N.Asok Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners would submit that the landlady is aged more than 80 years and so it may not be possible for her to have the building reconstructed. It is also contended that more than Rupees One crore is required for reconstructing the building. The evidence given by PW1 would show that she is not having that much of amount with her, so submitted the learned counsel. In order to reconstruct the building, it is not necessary that the landlady should have that much of amount in cash with her. She has the ability to raise the required fund by availing loan from banks and other financial institutions. The evidence given by PW1 was correctly appreciated by the two authorities below and they came to the concussion that the need for reconstruction is bona fide. Since the Local Authorities have given permit and plan and since Ext.A83 plan shows that provision has been made to accommodate the tenants, the revision petitioners can have no genuine grievance. We are satisfied that the orders passed by the court below do not warrant any interference. 6. The result is therefore as follows; i). The revision petition is dismissed. RCR.No.124/2011 4 ii). The tenants/revision petitioners are granted four months time to vacate the petition schedule building and to put the landlady in possession of the same. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE dpk