IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 7TH DECEMBER 2009 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 RCRev..No. 533 of 2005() ------------------------ RCA.34/2003 OF RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, PARAVUR RCP.14/2001 OF RENT CONTROL COURT, PARAVUR .................... (S): PETITIONERS: -------------------------------- 1. K.C. ABRAHAM MASTER MEMORIAL TRUST, AYYAMPILLY MURI, KOZHUPPILLY VILLAGE, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIARMAN VASU, S/O. KUNJIRAMAN, THERASSERY, NARAKKAL VILLAGE, NARAKKAL MURI. 2. SECRETARY, BALAKRISHNAN, S/O. KUMARAN, ANCHALASSRY, KUZHUPPILLY VILLAGE, KUZHUPILLY MURI. BY ADV. SRI.S.V.BALAKRISHNA IYER, SENIOR ADVOCATE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SHANMUGHAN, S/O. VASU, ODASSERY, PALLIPPURAM VILLAGE, CHERAI MURI. 2. THE SECRETARY, VYPIN BLOCK SAKSHARATHA VISION VIKASANA KENDRAM, P.P.II/366. ADV. SRI.K.K.JOHN FOR R1 THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------------------- RCR. No. 533 of 2005 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of December, 2009 O R D E R Pius C. Kuriakose, J. K.C.Abraham Master Memorial Trust, the landlord represented by its Chairman and Secretary is in revision under Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965. The first respondent is the tenant and the second respondent is the alleged sublessee. Eviction was sought on the ground of arrears of rent (Section 11(2)(b), bona fide need for own occupation (Section 11(3) and subletting (Section 11(4)(i). All the grounds were disputed by the respondents. The Rent Control Court enquired into the matter and at trial the evidence consisted of oral evidence of PW1 and RW1 and also documents Exts.A1 to A5. A5 was the trust deed pertaining to the landlord trust. The Rent Control Court found that rent was in arrears as alleged and passed an order of eviction under Section 11(2)(b). However, RCR. 533 of 2005 - 2 - considering the eviction ground under subsection (3) of Section 11 it was found that the need is not bona fide. It was also found that the petition was liable to fail by virtue of the first proviso to subsection (3) of Section 11 since the landlord was unsuccessful in proving that there are special reasons to order eviction despite the landlord's possession of buildings with them. Accordingly, eviction was declined under section 11(3). The ground under section 11(4)(i) was also declined for want of evidence. As regards the order of eviction passed under Section 11(2)(b) it was provided that an application under section 11(2)(c) can be filed by the tenant for vacating the said order. The Appellate Authority reappraised the evidence, however, concurred with all the conclusions of the Rent Control Court and dismissed the appeal preferred by the landlord. 2. Sri.S.V.Balakrishna Iyer, senior Advocte for the revision petitioner and Sri.K.K.John, learned Advocate for RCR. 533 of 2005 - 3 - the respondents addressed us on the various grounds raised in the memorandum of revision. Even though Mr.Balakrishna Iyer assailed the decision of the authorities below and argued that order of eviction was liable to be passed under Section 11(3) at least, in our opinion, the most appealing among Mr.Balakrishna Iyer's submissions was the one he made in the context of Section 11(7) of Act 2 of 1965. We are of the view that the landlord revision petitioner is an institution which comes within the purview of Section 11(7). This court has held that the standards for establishing the bona fides of a need under Section 11(7) are more liberal than even the standards required for establishing the bona fides of a need for additional accommodation under subsection (8) of Section 11 which is held in several decisions to be liberal in comparison with the standards as required for establishing the bona fides of a need under subsection (3) of Section 11. We are therefore RCR. 533 of 2005 - 4 - of the view that it is not necessary that we examine the merits of the various grounds raised in this revision petition regarding the landlord's eligibility for order of eviction under subsection (3) of Section 11. We permit the revision petitioner to file a fresh rent control petition invoking subsection (7) of Section 11 for evicting the first respondent for the need projected in the present rent control petition and for other needs, if any. If any such fresh rent control petition is instituted by the revision petitioner within three months from today, that RCP will be given top priority and disposed of by the Rent Control Court in accordance with law without being influenced by the order of the Rent Control Court and the judgment of the Appellate Authority which are impugned in this revision. 3. As for the order declining eviction on the ground of subletting, we are of the view that there is no warrant for invoking revisional jurisdiction of this court for interfering RCR. 533 of 2005 - 5 - with that order. However, this decision will not bar a fresh motion by the landlord on the same ground on the basis of any subsequent cause of action. 4. It is submitted by Mr.K.K.John that the order of eviction passed under section 11(2)(b) has been vacated by the Rent Control Court considering an application under section 11(2)(c) filed by the first respondent. However, since the cause of action for a petition for eviction on the ground of arrears of rent can recur, it will always be open to the landlord to file fresh rent control petition on the ground of arrears of rent if as a matter of fact rent has fallen due and is kept in arrears by the first respondent. RCR is disposed of as above. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE ksv/-