IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RCRev..No. 196 of 2010()
1. K.MOHANAN, S/O GOPALAN, AGED 47 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. POTTENDAVIDA USMAN, S/O. LATE MAMMED,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.R.SURENDRAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :21/07/2010
O R D E R
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ.
------------------------
R.C.R.No.196 OF 2010
------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of July, 2010
O R D E R
Pius C.Kuriakose, J.
The tenant challenges in this revision under Section 20 the
judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the
order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court under Section
11(4)(iii). In fact the respondent/landlord invoked the ground
of arrears of rent Section 11(2)(b) and the ground of bona fide
need for own occupation under Section 11(3) also for evicting
the tenant. Eviction on the ground of arrears of rent was
declined by the Rent Control Court and the said order has
become final. The Rent Control Court ordered eviction under
Section 11(3). But, during the pendency of the appeal preferred
by the tenant the person, for whom possession of the building
was sought under Section 11(3), passed away. It was noticed by
the Appellate Authority that, the need under Section 11(3) was
R.C.R. No.196/2010. 2
not the need for personal occupation of the person who passed
away alone, but occupation by the family members of him also.
Hence permitting the landlord to amend the pleadings, the issue
of ordering eviction under section 11(3) was relegated to the
Rent Control Court.
2. It was on the basis of a building, which is referred to in
the judgment of the Appellate Authority as ‘Janaki’s building’,
that the Rent Control Court passed order of eviction under sect
ion 11 (4)(iii). The pleading of the landlord in the RCP was that
the tenant has acquired possession of another building and is
actually doing his business of conducting taxi house (hiring of
furniture, etc.) from that building. The revision petitioner’s
defence was one of total denial. It became evident through
Ext.A3 and the tenant’s own oral evidence that he had come into
possession of the building referred to as ‘Janaki’s building’. The
tenant’s case was that the above building is a residential building
in which he is presently residing. Significantly, the tenant did
not specifically contend even alternatively that the above
building is not reasonably sufficient for his requirements. The
statutory authorities have taken the view that when it becomes
R.C.R. No.196/2010. 3
evident that the tenant is in possession of another building, it is
the tenant’s burden to adduce evidence and show that the said
building is not reasonably sufficient for his requirements within
the same city, town or village. It is in that view of the matter
that the Appellate Authority confirmed the order of eviction
passed under Section 11(4)(iii).
3. In this revision under section 20, various grounds have
been raised assailing the judgment of the Appellate Authority to
the extent it relates to section 11 (4)(iii). Mr.R.Surendran,
learned counsel for the revision petitioner, addressed arguments
before us on the basis of all the grounds. Inter alia,
Mr.Surendran submitted that the building, which the tenant has
admitted to be in his possession, is a residential building only. A
ration card, which was sought to be adduced as an item of
evidence before the Appellate Authority, was not allowed to be
brought on record. At any rate, according to the learned counsel,
a residential building will not be suitable for conduct of business.
As regards Ext.A3, Mr.Surendran submitted that Ext.A3 was not
put to his client, while he was examined as RW1, during cross
examination. Hence, reliance placed on Ext.A3 to hold that the
R.C.R. No.196/2010. 4
tenant has acquired possession of another building reasonably
sufficient for his requirement is not justified. The learned counsel
submitted that the petition schedule building is a double storied
building and it is too much to assume that there will be enough
facility in Ext.A3 building for accommodating the entire business
which is being carried on in the petition schedule building.
Mr.Surendran further submitted that the rent control petition
lacks in proper pleadings regarding section 11(4)(iii) as there is
no plea that the building acquired by the tenant is reasonably
sufficient for the tenant’s requirement. The learned counsel
would argue that Section 11(4)(iii) of Act 2 of 1965 is
unconstitutional and is liable to be struck down as it is likely that
the above eviction ground be invoked by the landlords of
buildings simultaneously possessed by a tenant resulting in the
situation of the tenant becoming liable to be evicted from both
the buildings. Mr.Surendran further requested that as the matter
is already before the Rent Control Court in the context of Section
11(3), let the issue of section 11(4)(iii) also be reconsidered by
the Rent Control Court.
R.C.R. No.196/2010. 5
4. We have anxiously considered the submissions of
Sri.Surendran. According to us, the legislative intendment
underlying section 11(4)(iii) is that at a time, where there is
acute accommodation shortage, the tenant should not be allowed
the luxury of having more buildings in his possession than that
what is actually necessary for his purpose, so that additional
buildings in the possession of the tenant can be made available
either for a needy landlord or for other needy tenants. Here
there was a specific plea by the landlord that the tenant has
acquired possession of another building and that it is in that
building that the tenant is presently conducting the business
which he was conducting in the petition schedule building. True,
the statutory requirement that the building, possession of which
is acquired by the tenant over and above the petition schedule
building, is reasonably sufficient for the tenant’s requirements in
the same city, town or village, is not specifically pleaded. But,
we notice that it has been pleaded by the landlord that it is in
the newly acquired building that the tenant is conducting
business. The authorities under the Rent Control Act are not
expected to analyse the pleadings meticulously. According to us,
R.C.R. No.196/2010. 6
pleadings raised by the landlord are sufficient enough to
constitute eviction ground since any building, in which the
tenant is allegedly conducting the business which he used to
conduct in the petition schedule building will have to be
reasonably sufficient for the tenant’s requirement. At any rate
we are convinced that no prejudice has been occasioned to the
tenant on account of insufficiency of pleadings.
5. The statutory requirement under Section 11 (4)(iii) is not
ownership of a building other than the petition schedule
premises, instead, the requirement is possession. Ext.A3
coupled with the tenant’s own admission in the witness box will
show that though the building in question stands in the name
of his mother Janaki, it is the tenant, who is in actual occupation
of the building. We are not impressed by the submission of Sri.
Surendran that Ext.A3 was not put to the tenant in cross
examination. It is true that it was not Ext.A3 that was put to the
tenant in cross examination, but another agreement in respect of
the building covered by Ext.A3. It was thereafter that Ext.A3
was got marked in evidence. Ext.A3 is a certified copy of the
Property Tax Assessment Register maintained by the local
R.C.R. No.196/2010. 7
authority in respect of the building mentioned therein. Ext.A3 is
a document having considerable probative value in view of
section 26 of Act 2 of 1965 and the Rent Control Court was
bound to accept admission of Ext.A3 in evidence. In all
probability, Ext.A3 was admitted in evidence on consent. Even
without consent, Ext.A3 was liable to be admitted in evidence.
6. As already indicated, the tenant did not have a specific
case that the building covered by Ext.A3 was not reasonably
sufficient for his requirement. On the contrary, his case was that
he has nothing to do with that building. Once it became evident
that the tenant is in possession of the building, it was his burden
to have adduced cogent evidence and convinced the Rent
Control Court that the said building is not reasonably sufficient
for his requirements. Having not done so, he cannot blame the
statutory authorities for having concluded that the landlord has
established eviction ground against the tenant under Section 11
(4)(iii).
7. We are not impressed by the argument of the revision
petitioner regarding the constitutionality of Section 11(4) (iii).
We are not expected to enquire into the constitutionality of a
R.C.R. No.196/2010. 8
statutory provision in these proceedings under section 20 of Act
2 of 1965 where our essential concern is about the legality,
regularity and propriety of the judgment of the appellate
authority. The constitutionality of the provision was never
challenged hitherto by the revision petitioner. We do not find
much merit in the challenge on the constitutionality of the
provision. One of the legislative objectives underlying the rent
control legislation is to regulate letting, rent rates, and eviction
in view of the acute accommodation shortage prevalent. It is
trite by decisions of the Supreme Court that rent control
legislations are for the welfare of the landlords also. Even if it is
accepted that the essential objective of the statute is to prevent
eviction other than on specified grounds and in that way to
promote the welfare of tenants, we are of the view that a
tenant who is liable to be evicted under Section 11 (4) (iii) is
landlord like, as he enjoys, possession of more buildings than
necessary for his requirements.
In short, we do not find any illegality, irregularity or
impropriety as envisaged by Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965,
tainting the judgment of the Appellate Authority to the extent it
R.C.R. No.196/2010. 9
pertains to ground under Section 11 (4)(iii). The decision of the
Appellate Authority ordering eviction under Section 11 (4)(iii)
stands confirmed. The revision petition stands dismissed.
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE
C.K.ABDUL REHIM , JUDGE
dpk