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 27TH JANUARY 2011 / 7TH MAGHA 1932 RCRev..No. 197 of 2007() --------------------------------- RCA.9/1993 of DISTRICT COURT, KOLLAM RCP.3/1988 of MUNSIFF COURT, KOLLAM .................... APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS :- ---------------------------------------- 1. A.SANJEEVI (DIED) 2. A.S.ABHIRAMI,D/O.A.SANJEEVI,38,UPSTAIRS, POST OFFICE STREET, CHENNAI – 1. 3. VIMAL, S/O.LATE A.SANJEEVI, NO.15TH STREET,C.I.T.COLONY, MAILOPORE,CHENNAI. 4. S.GEETHA, W/O.A.SANJEEVI, NO.15TH STREET, C.I.T.COLONY, MAILOPORE, CHENNAI. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.DILIP SRI.SAJU N.A. RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT :- ---------------------------------------------- VENUGOPALAN, S/O.KESAVAN, PROPRIETOR NOVELITY STORES, MAIN ROAD, CHINNAKADA,KOLLAM. ADV. SRI.T.R.RAVI THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: jvt PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ---------------------------------- R.C.R. No.197 of 2007 ------------------------------ Dated this the 27th day of January 2011 O R D E R Pius C. Kuriakose, J. Landlords are in revision. The prominent ground on which the tenant is sought to be evicted is the ground under Sub section (3) of Section 11. The need projected under Sub section (3) of Section 11 was the need to accommodate the Branch office of a partnership firm by name Vimal Steels. It is conceded that the above partnership is not in existence. The case pleaded was that the deceased first petitioner in the RCP Sri.Sanjeevi will be managing the proposed branch of Vimal Steels. After the demise of Sri.Sanjeevi this Court in CRP remanded the RCP for considering two questions. (i) Whether the partnership is in existence? R.C.R. No.197 of 2007 -: 2 :- (ii) Whether the need has survived Sri.Sanjeevi? 2. That the partnership does not exist, is conceded before us by Sri.K.S.Dilip, the learned counsel for the petitioners. According to him the need was essentially the need of the family. According to the learned counsel, the partnership was a family partnership and the business is proposed to be conducted as a family business. The learned Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority have concurrently found that it is difficult to accept the newly developed case of accommodating a family business in the tenanted premises. 3. Having scanned the order of the learned Rent Control Court and the judgment of the learned Appellate Authority, we do not find any infirmity about the findings concurrently entered by the two statutory authorities regarding the continuance of the need projected. During the course of his submissions, Mr.K.S.Dilip submitted that the tenant is in possession of a shopping complex within the R.C.R. No.197 of 2007 -: 3 :- area of Kollam Corporation and he is liable to be evicted also on the ground of Section 11(4)(iii). We do not think it will prefer to order of eviction against the tenant on the ground specified as above. If the tenant is in possession of another building reasonably sufficient for his requirements within the area of Kollam City, then it is for the landlords to invoke the same as a ground and seek eviction on the basis of that ground. If anyone of the surviving landlords has present need to occupy the petition schedule building for any purpose other than the purpose of the partnership firm which is projected in the RCP, then it is open to them to file a fresh RCP projecting that particular need. It is clear to our mind that the judgment of the learned Appellate Authority which is in confirmation of the order of the Rent Control Court does not suffer from any illegality, irregularity or impropriety justifying the invocation of the revisional jurisdiction of under Section 20 of the Act. 4. We notice another aspect of the matter. The R.C.R. No.197 of 2007 -: 4 :- building which is having a total area of 500 sq.feet is situated at Chinnakkada which is easily the most important commercial center in Kollam Corporation. The building is fetching to the landlords only a paltry rent of just Rs.255/-. We are sure that if the two buildings are let out now, the same will fetch a substantial amount by way of rent. We, therefore are inclined to refix the total rent payable by the respondent to the revision petitioners at the rate of Rs.3,500/- per mensem with effect from 1.2.2011. It is accordingly refixed. If either party is aggrieved, it is open to them to move the Rent Control Court under Section 5 for the regular fixation of fair rent. Till the fair rent is fixed, the respondent shall pay to the revision petitioners rent at the rate of Rs.3,500/- per mensem. The judgment of the learned Appellate Authority is confirmed and eviction order is declined. But we make it clear that it is open to the revision petitioners to initiate fresh proceedings for eviction on all available grounds including ground under Section 11 R.C.R. No.197 of 2007 -: 5 :- (4)(iii) and on the ground of Section 11(3) itself if the change in circumstances justify invocation of the same ground. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Jvt