IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 22ND MAGHA 1932 RCRev..No. 24 of 2011() ----------------------- RCA.1/2004 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY KASARAGODE RCP.24/2001 of MUNSIFF COURT, HOSDRUG .................... REV.PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/TENANT -------------------------------------------------------------- ARUVAPPATTIL KUNHAMBU, S/O.PADINJAREVEETTIL KUNHAMBU, CLOTH MERCHANT, RAJAH ROAD, NILESHWAR, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER-LANDLORD ---------------------------------- P.SREEDHARAN, S/O.K.V.RAMAN VAIDYAR, RETIRED D.E.O., P.O.NILESHWAR, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARGOD DISTRICT, PIN-671 314. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No.24 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 11th day of February, 2011 O R D E R Balakrishnan, J. The tenant is in revision. The landlord sought eviction of the petition schedule building on the ground of bona fide need and also on the ground of reconstruction of the building. The need projected by the landlord is to have dental equipment room in the ground floor and to have a dental lab in the up stair portion. In the main building, there are altogether five rooms. It was contended by the landlord that the building is in a dilapidated condition and that only after reconstruction, the building can be used for the purpose of accommodating the dental equipment room for the sale of dental equipments and to accommodate the dental lab. The need projected by the landlord was accepted by the learned Rent Controller. 2. In the appeal preferred by the tenant, the Appellate Authority concurred with the view taken by the Rent Control Court. 3. Sri.Gopikrishnan Nambiar, learned counsel for the RCR.No.24/2011 2 revision petitioner, submits that four other tenants have accepted the need put forwarded by the landlord and the only other tenant who has not accepted the need put forward by the landlord is the revision petitioner. The learned counsel submits that in the plan relied upon by the landlord marked, as Ext.A22, the total plinth area of the building was shown as 38.17 square Meters. But it is seen that the total area occupied by the five tenants was more than the area shown in the revised plan relied upon by the landlord. It is seen that the total area in the proposed building to be reconstructed would be only about 39 square meters. Since the need is to have a dental lab in the upstair room and for sale of dental equipments in the ground floor, it may not be possible for the landlord to accommodate the revision petitioner in any portion of the reconstructed building. Every effort was made by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner to convince that it may be possible for the landlord to accommodate the revision petitioner in a portion of the reconstructed building. But on going through the materials available, we are convinced that it may be practically impossible for the landlord to accommodate the revision petitioner. Since RCR.No.24/2011 3 the need projected by the landlord was found to be bona fide by the two statutory authorities, we are not inclined to upset those findings. As such the revision petition fails and the same will stand dismissed. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE dpk