IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 30TH MAY 2011 / 9TH JYAISHTA 1933 RCRev..No. 165 of 2007 --------------------------------- [RCA.NO.113/2004 OF RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY (II ADDL.DISTRICT COURT),ERNAKULAM, RCP.120/2003 OF RENT CONTROL COURT (III ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT), ERNAKULAM] .................... REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. JOLLY EDWIN, AGED 49, W/O.LATE EDWIN, RESIDING AT PUTHUMANA HOUSE, KARIMPATA ROAD, ERNAKULAM. 2. JOSE PARKASH P.F., AGED 29, S/O.LATE EDWIN, RESIDING AT PUTHUMANA HOUSE, KARIMPATA ROAD, ERNAKULAM. 3. SEBASTIAN ALEXANDER, AGED 26, S/O.LATE EDWIN, RESIDING AT PUTHUMANA HOUSE, KARIMPATA ROAD, ERNAKULAM. 4. KAROLIN MARIA, AGED 21, S/O.LATE EDWIN, RESIDING AT PUTHUMANA HOUSE, KARIMPATA ROAD, ERNAKULAM. BY ADVS. SRI.PROMY KAPRAKKATT, SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT, SRI.ABHILASH NARAYAN, SMT.P.K.BEENA. RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------------------------------------- LAL, AGED ABOUT 47, EDEAL TV INSTITUTE, PUTHUMANA HOUSE, KARIMPATA ROAD, ERNAKULAM. BY ADVS. SRI.K.A.RASHEED, SRI.MANSOOR.B.H. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.C.R. NO. 165 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 30th day of May, 2011. O R D E R Balkrishnan,J. Landlords are in revision. Eviction is sought by the landlords u/s 11(3) of the Act for their own occupation of the premises. It was contended that they intend to start a garment marking unit. The claim was resisted by the tenant contending that it is only a pretext for eviction. It was further contended that the landlords are in possession of three other rooms in the very same building in which the petition schedule building is situated and in view of the first proviso to S.11(3) the claim has to be disallowed. R.C.R. NO. 165 OF 2007 -:2:- 2. The Rent Control Court on evaluating the evidence found that the landlords were in vacant possession of other rooms at the time of the filing of the RCP and also thereafter. Hence the claim was disallowed by that court. The learned Appellate Authority concurred with the view taken by the learned Rent Controller. 3. Sri.Sunil Nair, learned counsel for the revision petitioners would submit that the petition schedule building is a more spacious one situated on the rear side having an area of 585.87sq.ft. The other rooms which fell vacant were smaller in size, totally insufficient for starting a garment making unit. The room occupied by Puthumana Electronics is having an area of 250 sq.mt. One room occupied by Abin Tours and Travels is having an area of 74.05 sqm. and the room occupied by Sreelakshmi Gift R.C.R. NO. 165 OF 2007 -:3:- house facing the road is having an area of 23.62 sqm. The argument now canvassed by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners is that since it is only a garment making unit, the revision petitioners thought that it would be ideal to have the rear room vacated because the room situated by the side of the road would fetch more rent so that the landlords can eke out their livelihood from the earnings derived from those rooms as rent. According to the learned counsel there is nothing unusual or irrational in it, for, the landlords are perfectly justified in putting their building to more profitable use. This submission is stoutly resisted by the learned counsel for the respondent pointing out that no specific plea was raised in the petition regarding the vacant rooms which were in the possession of the R.C.R. NO. 165 OF 2007 -:4:- landlord at the time of filing of the RCP and also about the rooms which fell vacant subsequently. A Commission was taken out. But the landlords did not think of requesting the Commissioner to note the particulars regarding the area occupied by the tenants, the rooms which fell vacant subsequent to the filing of RCP, the special reason for opting to get the petition schedule building vacated etc. There is also no convincing evidence as to when these rooms fell vacant and were subsequently let out. It is also necessary to find out whether there was justifiable reasons for letting out those rooms to others and was there any special reason for getting possession of the petition schedule room. Considering all these aspects we are inclined to hold that an opportunity should be granted to the landlords to adduce further R.C.R. NO. 165 OF 2007 -:5:- evidence in the matter with regard to the area occupied by each of the tenants in the building owned by the landlords and also to produce documents to show when those rooms fell vacant and subsequently let out. Respondent/tenant can also adduce further evidence in the matter. 4. It is noticed that the rent presently paid by the tenant for the petition schedule building is only Rs.1,500/-. The building is situated on the Karimpatta road near Medical Trust Hospital. According to the landlords, it would fetch a monthly rent of more than Rs.5,000/- if let out today. Considering all these aspects we are inclined to refix the monthly rent at Rs.3,000/- with effect from 1st June, 2011 onwards. If either of the parties is aggrieved by the tentative refixation, they can move the Rent Control Court u/s 5 of the Act. R.C.R. NO. 165 OF 2007 -:6:- 5. In the result the order passed by the Rent Control Court and the judgment of the Appellate Authority are set aside and the RCP is remanded to the Rent Control Court, Ernakulam for disposal of the matter afresh after giving opportunity to both the sides to adduce further evidence. Parties are directed to appear before the Rent Control Court, Ernakulam on 24.6.2011. The learned Rent Controller shall dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible. Sd/- PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. Sd/- N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/- [ True copy ] P.S. to Judge. *-