R. Bhaskaran, J. - (1.)This revision is filed at the instance of the landlord who sought eviction of the tenant from the tenanted premises under Sections 11(2)(b), 11(3), 11(4)(ii) and (iv) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The Rent Control Court allowed the application under Sections 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(4)(iv), while disallowed the claim under Section 11 (4)(ii) of the Act. In appeal, the Appellate Authority set aside the order of eviction on all the grounds and dismissed the Rent Control Petition.
(2.)The respondent obtained the petition schedule building from the revision petitioner/landlord as per rent deed executed in 1984. According to the landlord, the tenant did not pay any rent subsequently. She wanted to demolish the building and construct a residence-cum-commercial complex for increasing her income and for her better living. It is further stated in the Rent Control Petition that since the landlord wanted the tenant to vacate, he became inimical towards her and caused damage to the building. In the objections filed by the tenant, it was stated that the petition was not maintainable though he admitted that he was a tenant. He disputed the rent claimed as Rs. 300/-. According to him, it was only Rs. 30/-. He also contended that the contentions raised in the petition are against the decision in O.S. No. 1771 of 1991. The landlord has stated in the previous proceedings that she had parted with the title over the plaint schedule building and her daughter was the present owner. It was also contended that for improving the living condition and for further income of the landlord, there was no necessity to evict the tenant as the petitioner and her daughter were rich having numerous palatial buildings, most of them rented out to various persons. In the Rent Control Court the tenant pressed the question of maintainability of the Rent Control Petition as the landlord had already parted with her right in favour of her daughter. Relying on the definition of the word "landlord", the Rent Control Court found that the petitioner was still a landlord and an order of eviction could be passed in her favour if other conditions are satisfied. The Rent Control Court also found that the need alleged by the landlord for reconstruction was bona fide. The Appellate Authority has however found that after the gift of the property by the petitioner in favour of her daughter as per registered settlement deed dated 12-4-1989, the Rent Control Petition filed by the mother in 1997 claiming herself to be the owner of the property and also claiming that recovery of possession was required for her bona fide need and for reconstruction for advancing her living standard was not at all maintainable. The Appellate Authority also found that though the daughter had executed a power-of-attorney in favour of the mother which was produced at the fag end of the trial, the same would not make any difference in the result as the Rent Control Petition was not filed for and on behalf of the daughter or for the bona fide need of the daughter. Therefore, it was found that the order of eviction granted by the Rent Control Court was not sustainable.
(3.)In this revision, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner repeated the contentions of the petitioner in the Rent Control Petition before the Rent Control Court as well as the Appellate Authority. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner is a landlord within the definition of the term in the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act and is entitled to file the petition. He also contended that even if the landlord had parted with title of the property in favour of her daughter, the daughter has executed a power-of-attorney in her favour and has authorised her to file the Rent Control Petition. For that reason also, it is argued that the Rent Control Petition is maintainable. It is also argued that the petitioner in the Rent Control Petition had filed I.A. Nos. 760 and 761 of 1998 for impleading the daughter as second petitioner and also for reviewing the order for disposal and reopening the case for evidence. As per separate orders dated 13-2-1998 and 11-2-1998 those petitions were dismissed. According to the learned counsel, those petitions should have been allowed. The learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand supported the reasoning of the Appellate Authority and argued that on the pleadings and evidence now available, no other conclusion was possible than the one arrived at by the Appellate Authority.