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 10TH MARCH 2011 / 19TH PHALGUNA 1932 RCRev..No. 324 of 2010() ------------------------ RCA.43/2009 OF ADDL. RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY-II, TRIVANDRUM RCP.3/2007 OF RENT CONTROL COURT, VARKALA .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/COUNTER PETITIONER -------------------------------------------------------------------- PERUMAL ACHARY, AGED 65 YEARS, S/O.SASTHAKANNU ACHARY, RESIDING AT SARASADANAM, CHILAKOOR DESAM, VARKALA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.J.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------ REETHA SYAM, AGED 54 YEARS, D/O.NARAYANAN, "CHIPPI", CHILAKOOR DESAM, VARKALA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.M.R.RAJESH SMT.A.K.PREETHA THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A.NO.2617 OF 2010 IN R.C.R.NO.324 OF 2010 DISMISSED 10.3.2011 SD/- PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. SD/- N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ---------------------------------------------------- R.C.R.No.324 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of March, 2011 Order Balakrishnan, J. The tenant who has suffered an order of eviction passed concurrently under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 is the revision petitioner. The landlady purchased one cent of land including the petition schedule building as per document dated 27.10.2005. R.C.P. was filed after the expiry of one year. The bonafide need projected by her is that her husband who is the owner in possession of 12 cents of land adjacent to the petition schedule building intends to put up a commercial building complex for starting business in textiles and for that purpose the petition schedule building has to be demolished. 2. Before the Rent Control Court, P.W.1, the landlady and two other witnesses, P.Ws.2 and 3 were examined and Exts.A1 to A8 were marked. On the side of the tenant, D.W.1, the tenant and two other witnesses, D.Ws.2 & 3 were examined and Exts.B1 RCR 324/2010 2 to B7 were marked. Commissioner's report and plan were also marked as Exts.C1 and C1(a). The Rent Control Court found that the need projected by the landlady is true, but it was pointed out that an offer was made by the landlady that in the newly constructed building a shop room would be provided to the tenant. That condition was specifically mentioned in the order of the Rent Control Court to be complied with by the landlady. 3. In the appeal filed by the tenant, the tenant disputed all the grounds including the bonafide need projected by the landlady. The Appellate Authority, after reappreciating the entire evidence, dismissed the appeal. The direction made by the Rent Control Court that in the newly constructed building, the tenant should be provided a shop room on the same rent was not set aside. 4. Mr.J.Harikumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the building has already been constructed by the landlady and her husband in the remaining area. 5. There is a shop room just in front of the petition schedule building, it is stated. Eviction petition was filed in respect of that RCR 324/2010 3 room. It was contended by the landlady that the area occupied by the petition schedule building is required as per the plan approved by the local authority for providing access and also for better use of the newly constructed building. The need so projected cannot be said to be tainted with malafides. The argument of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that since in the order passed by the Rent Control Court, no time was fixed and since a direction as required under second proviso to Section 11(4)(iv) was not made, a direction may be issued by this court especially because the landlady did not challenge the order passed by the Rent Controller with regard to allotment of a shop room in the building under construction. 6. The submission as aforesaid has been stoutly opposed by the learned counsel for the landlady. It is submitted that since the claim was made only under Section 11(3) of the Act, no direction can be issued as provided under second proviso to Section 11(4)(iv) of the Act. The learned counsel also does not dispute the fact that an offer was made to the tenant that in the newly constructed building a room would be provided to the tenant and that was not challenged by him before the Appellate RCR 324/2010 4 Authority. But the learned counsel submits that the request that he may be evicted only after he is reinducted in a room in the new building cannot be sustained. 7. Having gone through the order passed by the Rent Control Court and the judgment of the Appellate Authority, we are of the considered view that the landlady has to abide by the offer made by her, based on which the direction was issued by the learned Rent Controller that in the new building the tenant should be provided a room. Though it was earlier submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the building has already been constructed by the landlady, it was later submitted that the construction of the building has not been completed. However, since the landlady has started construction, the apprehension expressed by the revision petitioner that the building would not be constructed at all cannot be accepted. Since the need alleged by the landlady was found to be bonafide by the statutory authorities, the order of eviction passed by those authorities is only to be confirmed. In the result, the revision petition is dismissed. The revision petitioner is granted six months time to vacate the petition schedule building. It is made RCR 324/2010 5 clear that as soon as the construction of the commercial building complex is completed, the landlady would provide a room to the revision petitioner in that building as offered by her and as mentioned in the order passed by the Rent Control Court. It is made clear that if the landlady feels aggrieved by the direction made by the learned Rent Controller that the room in the new building should be provided to the tenant on the same rent, she can apply for fixation of fair rent after the tenant is inducted into possession of a room in the newly constructed building. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. srd RCR 324/2010 6 RCR 324/2010 7