IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RCRev..No. 419 of 2010()
1. V.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SHAMIL DAS
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.RAM MOHAN.G.
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice N.K.BALAKRISHNAN
Dated :21/12/2010
O R D E R
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.
------------------------
R.C.R.No.419 OF 2010
------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of December, 2010
O R D E R
Balakrishnan, J.
The tenant has come up in revision against an order
passed under Section 11(4)(iv) of the Act. The claim was made
under Section 11(3) of the Act also, but the order was confined
to Section 11 (4)(iv) alone. The landlady contended that she
intends to reconstruct the building and for that purpose she has
the required plan, licence and also the financial capacity to re-
build.
2. The tenant opposed the claim contending that the
petition is filed only as a ruse for eviction and that the landlady
has not produced the plan showing sufficient space to be alloted
to the tenant for enabling him to install the flour mill which is
now being conducted by the tenant in the petition schedule
building. The Rent Controller disallowed the claim not only
under Section 11(3) but also under Section 11(4)(iv) of the Act.
3. The learned Appellate Authority has found that the
RCR.No.419/2010 2
need for reconstruction of the building projected by the
landlady is bonafide and that all the ingredients required
under Section 11 (4)(iv) have been satisfied. But, the Appellate
Authority found that in Ext.A1 plan produced by the landlady
office space was marked out which according to the landlady
can be allotted to the tenant to install the flour mill. It has to
be satisfied whether a flour mill can be installed therein. Hence,
the learned Appellate Authority remanded the matter to the trial
court with certain directions.
4. Sri.Ram Mohan G., learned counsel appearing for the
revision petitioner/tenant, contended that the sole idea of the
landlady is to throw out the tenant as is evident from the fact
that Ext.A1 plan produced by the landlady is only of a
residential complex wherein no provision has been made for
housing the flour mill of the tenant. The only area provided in
Ext.A1 is an office room, which according to the revision
petitioner, cannot be used for installing the flour mill.
5. The learned counsel submits that this was not an offer
made by the landlady, but only a direction issued by the
Appellate Authority. However, it is seen that the learned
RCR.No.419/2010 3
Appellate Authority has analysed the evidence in entirety and
found that the landlady has sufficient financial capacity to
rebuild and also plan and licence from the Corporation. The fact
that this building is not abutting any road and that there is only
a narrow way leading to the building also has been projected by
the tenant as a ground to contend that the building as proposed
by the landlady cannot be constructed and that if the flour mill is
allowed to be run in the portion of the ground floor of a four
storied building, it will be creating nuisance to the occupants
of the several rooms or flats in the building. These are
materials which must have been taken note of by the authorities
while issuing the plan and licence. No such objection was seen
to have been raised before the authorities.
6. The main grievance of the revision petitioner is that plan
showing the allocation of the required area for putting up a
flour mill in the ground floor of the building cannot be obtained
and in such an event, it would cause irreparable injury to the
tenant. The learned Appellate Authority has actually remanded
the matter to the Rent Control Court, to enable the petitioner
to produce a revised plan providing a suitable accommodation
RCR.No.419/2010 4
to the tenant in the reconstructed building so as to enable him to
conduct a flour mill. The tenant was also given opportunity to
adduce further evidence in the matter. Since the interest of the
tenant has already been safeguarded by the learned Appellate
Authority, we do not find any reason to interfere with the finding
so entered by the learned Appellate Authority.
7. We would clarify that in case the claim is to be allowed
under Section 11(4)(iv) before ordering eviction under Section
11(4)(iv), a revised approved plan should be produced by the
landlords showing the location of the area to put up the flour mill
and the learned Rent Controller should ensure that required
area is provided for accommodating the tenant to conduct a
flour mill in the said building. Since we do not find any ground
to interfere with the order of remand passed by the Appellate
Authority, this revision is only to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE
N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE
dpk