VADAKKAYIL BEEYATHU Vs. MAKKANDIYIL GOPALAN
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Click here to view full judgement.
Jawahar Lal Gupta, C.J. -
(1.) Is the landlord, who seeks eviction of the tenant under S.11(4)(iv) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 on the ground of need to reconstruct the building bound to produce the plan along with the petition or during the proceedings Is the failure to do so fatal to the petition This is the question before the Full Bench. The relevant facts may be briefly noticed.
(2.) On March 6, 1964, the demised premises were given on lease to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for a period of ten months. The monthly rate of rent was fixed at Rs. 9. After the lapse of more than 15 years, the petitioner sent a notice dated September 22, 1979 to the respondents. By this notice, the tenancy was terminated. They were asked to vacate the premises. On October 10, 1979 the first respondent had sent a reply. Mediation followed. The building was got repaired. The monthly rent was raised to Rs. 15. The rent at the revised rate was paid upto April 1980. Thereafter no payment was made. It was further alleged that the second respondent had transferred his rights to the third respondent without the knowledge or consent of the petitioner. Lastly, the petitioner stated that the building is old. It is in a dilapidated state. Buildings with modern facilities had come up in the vicinity. The building required reconstruction. She has the financial capacity to "reconstruct the building with all modern amenities and in a new pattern". On these grounds, the petitioners sought the eviction of the respondents. She presented a petition before the Rent Controller (Principal Munsiff), Thalassery. The petitioner claimed that she was entitled to the eviction of the respondents on the grounds available to her under S.11(2), 11(4)(i) and 11(4)(iv) of the Act.
(3.) The claim was contested by the respondents.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.