IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RCRev..No. 72 of 2010()
1. T.K.BHASKARAN, AGED 73 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. PARAKKANDY THAHA AGED 50 YEARS,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.V.R.KESAVA KAIMAL
For Respondent :SRI.V.PREMCHAND
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :06/04/2010
O R D E R
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ.
------------------------------------------
RCR. No. 72 & 73 of 2010
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 6th day of April, 2010
O R D E R
Pius C. Kuriakose, J.
Under challenge in these revision petitions filed by two
tenants in possession of two rooms in a larger building
belonging to the respondent Sri. Thaha is the judgment of
the Rent Control Appellate Authority remanding the rent
control petitions to the Rent Control Court. Eviction was
sought on the ground of reconstruction under section 11(4)
(iv). The Rent Control Court dismissed the rent control
petition on various reasons. The Appellate Authority made a
thorough reappraisal of the evidence and formulated the
following points as points arising for decision in the appeal.
1. Whether the landlord bonafide requires re-
construction of the petition schedule building
2. Whether the landlord has satisfied the court that he
has the ability to rebuild the building as proposed by
him?
3. Whether IA. Nos. 1562/07, 909/08 and 1608/09 are
RC R. 72 & 73 of 2010
– 2 –
allowable?
4. Whether the order of the Rent Control Court requires
interference?
5. Whether the landlord is entitled to eviction u/s. 11
(4)(iv) of the Act?
On the basis of the appreciation of the evidence on record
the Appellate Authority answered point No.1 in favour of the
landlord and found that the condition of the building is such
that the same requires reconstruction. But as regards point
No.2 whether the landlord has the ability to reconstruct the
Appellate Authority found that the evidence presently
available falls short of holding that the landlord has proved
his ability to carry out the reconstruction. The point No.3
considered was regarding one interlocutory application filed
by the tenant and two interlocutory applications filed by the
landlord. The tenant revision petitioner through I.A.1562/07
wanted the Appellate Authority to accept the certified copy
of the order in RCP No. 117 of 2008 passed by the Rent
RC R. 72 & 73 of 2010
– 3 –
Control Court during the pendency of the appeal. IA. Nos.
909/08 and 1608/09 were filed by the landlord for the
reception of certain documents which will prove that the
landlord has the financial ability to carry out the
reconstruction. The Rent Control Appellate Authority
dismissed both these three applications. Point Nos. 4 and 5
were answered by the Appellate Authority by setting aside
the order of the Rent Control Court and passing an order of
remand to the Rent Control Court for considering the
question whether the landlord has the ability to carry out the
reconstruction.
2. In these revisions identical grounds challenging the
judgment of the Appellate Authority have been raised and
we have heard the submissions of Sri.VRK Kaimal, learned
counsel for the petitioner and those of Sri.V.Premchand,
learned counsel for the respondent landlord. Even though
Mr. Kaimal addressed arguments on all the grounds raised in
the memorandum of revision he would lastly request that we
RC R. 72 & 73 of 2010
– 4 –
enlarge the scope of the order of remand passed by the
Appellate Authority making the order an open remand so
that the Rent Control Court can decide all relevant points
arising in the case afresh after giving opportunity to both
sides to adduce whatever further evidence they want to.
The above request is opposed by Mr. Premchand.
Petitioners are aggrieved by the order dismissing
IA.1562/07. According to them, the certified copy of the
order in RCP No. 117/08 has considerable implication. The
landlord’s wife who was examined as PW-1 in that RCP
confessed that she and her husband have no intention
whatsoever to reconstruct the building in question. By
dismissing the IA the Appellate Authority shut out a very
vital piece of evidence. The submissions of Mr.Kaimal were
resisted by Mr.Premchand. Mr. Premmchand also however,
submitted that the landlord is aggrieved by the order of the
Appellate Authority dismissing the two IAs filed by him. We
have very anxiously considered the rival submissions
RC R. 72 & 73 of 2010
– 5 –
addressed at the Bar. We have scanned the judgment of the
Rent Control Appellate Authority.
3. We are not inclined to leave all the relevant issues in
the case open to be decided afresh by the Rent Control
Court. According to us, the finding of the Appellate
Authority under point No.1 raised by that authority that the
building in question requires reconstruction is a correct
finding based on evidence. The building, going by the
Commissioner’s Report is one in which dilapidation has set
in. The building is situated in a commercially very important
area of Kannur Muicipal Town. That being so, we are of the
considered opinion that there is no warrant for interfering
with the Appellate Authority’s finding under point No.1
formulated in its judgment. We do not think that the
landlord can have any legitimate grievance against the
Appellate Authority’s order dismissing IA Nos. 909/08 and
1608/09. Even though those IAs by which the landlord
sought reception of documents which will prove the
RC R. 72 & 73 of 2010
– 6 –
landlord’s ability were dismissed since the question of ability
has been left open to be decided by the Rent Control Court
the Rent Control Court will certainly permit the landlord to
produce the document which the landlord wanted to produce
before the Appellate Authority. But it appears to us that
there are elements of genuineness in the grievance of the
revision petitioners that IA. No. 1562/07 has been dismissed
without giving opportunity to the revision petitioners for
producing documents before the Rent Control Court.
4. We feel that the implications of the order in
RCP.117/08 which was sought to be produced by the
revision petitioners is also an aspect to be considered by the
Rent Control Court. We are therefore of the view that the
impugned judgment of the Appellate Authority warrants
modification to the extent of permitting the revision
petitioners tenants to produce the certified copy of the order
in RCP No. 117/08 also as an additional item of evidence in
the RCP. To that extent the scope of the remand order
RC R. 72 & 73 of 2010
– 7 –
passed by the Appellate Authority will stand enlarged. In all
other respects findings of the Appellate Authority will stand
confirmed. That is to say that the issues to be decided by
the Rent Control Court are: (1) the ability of the landlord to
carry out reconstruction (2) the possibility of the landlord to
re-induct all the evicted tenants in terms of the third proviso
to Section 11 (4)(iv) after reconstruction and (3) the
implications of the order in RCP No.117 of 2008 on the
landlord’s entitlement to get eviction order under Section 11
(4)(iv).
RCRs. Are disposed of as above.
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE
C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE
ksv/-