IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RCRev No. 419 of 2006()
1. BALAN, S/O.ACHUTHAN,
... Petitioner
2. LAKSHMI, D/O.ACHUTHAN,
3. SIVAJI, S/O.K.ACHUTHAN,
4. NARENDRAN, S/O.K.ACHUTHAN,
Vs
1. P.SREEDHARAKURUP, AGED 60 YEARS,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.A.SUDHI VASUDEVAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.A.ABDUL GAFOOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.R.UDAYABHANU
Dated :11/12/2006
O R D E R
K.A.ABDUL GAFOOR &
K.R.UDAYABHANU, JJ.
---------------------------------------------------
R.C.R.No.419 & 420 of 2006
---------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of December, 2006.
O R D E R
Udayabhanu, J.
The revision petitioners are the tenants in
occupation of the concerned premises, and under orders
of eviction under Section 11 (4)(iv) of Kerala Buildings
(Lease and Rent Control) Act [Act 2 of 1965]
{hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’}.
2. The courts below concurrently found in
favour of the landlord and directed the revision
petitioners to surrender vacant possession of the
building on or before 30.9.2003. It was also directed
that the landlord shall reconstruct the building within
one year after getting possession and the tenants shall
have the first option to get the reconstructed building
allotted to them, with a liability to pay fair rent.
3. It is the contention of the revision
petitioners that there was no offer in the rent control
petitions that they will be provided accommodation after
reconstruction. It is also contended that the proposed
R.C.R.No.419 & 420 of 2006
:: 2 ::
reconstructed building is not suitable for the business
conducted by the petitioners.
4. We find that the Rent Control Court has
specifically directed as to the time limit within which the
reconstruction has to be completed and also provided the
first option to the petitioners with liability to pay fair rent
as per the statutory stipulation. Hence this contention
has no merit.
5. So far as the contention that the premises
proposed to be reconstructed would not be suitable to
the business being conducted by the petitioners – one of
the petitioners is conducting a provision store and the
another is conducting a hotel, we find that such a ground
was not raised before the courts below. The petitioners
are not entitled to raise a fresh ground at the revisional
stage.
6. On a perusal of the judgments of the courts
below, we find that the premises were inspected by the
commissioner and the commissioner reported that the
building is a tiled one and the walls had cracks and that in
R.C.R.No.419 & 420 of 2006
:: 3 ::
the locality there are a number of concrete buildings and
that the place is a commercially important one. This
court as well as the Supreme Court have held on a
number of occasions that the ‘condition of the building’ is
a larger concept which includes consideration of social
surroundings and allied factors. The revision petitioners
are not entitled to confine the landlord to the ownership
of the present tiled and dilapidated building. We find no
merit in these revision petitions and hence the same are
dismissed, confirming the findings of the courts below.
The petitioners will surrender vacant possession
of the building within two months from today and from
the date of getting possession, the landlord shall
reconstruct the building within one year therefrom.
Sd/-
(K.A.ABDUL GAFOOR)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(K.R.UDAYABHANU)
JUDGE
sk/
//true copy//
K.A.ABDUL GAFOOR &
K.R.UDAYABHANU, JJ.
——————————————–
R.C.R.No.419 & 420 of 2006
O R D E R
11th December, 2006.
————————————————