C V KAMALAKSHI Vs. P MOHANAKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenants challenge in this revision under Section 20, the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority ordering eviction against them on the ground of own occupation under Sub Section 3 of Section 11. This case has had a chequered career. The building in question is a residential building situated in the cantonment area of Kannur Municipal Town. The revision petitioners are in occupation of the same pursuant to a lease of 1954 paying a monthly rent of Rs.8/-. The landlord sought eviction on the ground that the building is required bona fide for occupation by his wife so that she can conduct tuition classes therein. The tenants disputed the bona fides of the need and also contended that the RCP is liable to fail by virtue of the first proviso to sub Section 3 of Section 11. The Rent Control Court enquired into the matter and on appreciating the evidence would come to the conclusion that the need is bona fide and accordingly dismissed the RCP. The landlord carried the matter in appeal before the Appellate Authority. The learned Appellate Authority would reverse the finding of the Rent Control Court and find that the need is bona fide. The Appellate Authority would further find that the first proviso to sub Section 3 of Section 11 does not operate against the landlord. Accordingly, the Appellate Authority ordered eviction. The tenant filed a Revision Petition against the judgment of the Appellate Authority and that revision was disposed of by this Court by passing Annexure-I judgment. In Annexure-I judgment it was noticed that the landlord himself as PW1 had stated in his evidence that he is having another building of his own in his possession. This Court, therefore, remanded the matter for deciding whether there are any special reasons on the basis of which the landlord can insist on getting possession of the petition schedule building despite possessing another building. Pursuant to the remand, the landlord/PW1 was recalled and examined. He would explain in his further evidence that even at the time he gave evidence earlier, the other building owned by him was under the occupation of a tenant. According to him, what he meant while stating that he has another building, was only that he was having ownership over another building. Exts.A1 to A4 documents were also produced by the landlord to substantiate his contention that he did not have possession over the above building. The learned Appellate Authority would accept the further evidence adduced by the landlord including Exts.A1 to A4 and hold that the landlord did not have possession of any other building attracting the first proviso to sub Section 3 of Section 11. Accordingly, the Appellate Authority under the impugned judgment would order eviction.

(2.) On considering this revision for admission and after hearing Sri.Surendran, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner for some time, he was directed to furnish relevant details regarding the other building of the landlord which he asserts to be under the vacant possession of the landlord. Pursuant to that direction he would furnish the door number of the building as Door No.39/234 and would also produce Annexure-II series of photographs. Sri.Grashious Kuriakose, the learned counsel for the landlord who had lodged a caveat would concede that the building shown in Annexure-II photographs is presently under the vacant possession of the landlord. According to him that building fell vacant only subsequent to the passage of the impugned judgment by the learned Appellate Authority. We have today heard Sri.Surendran and Sri.Grashious Kuriakose in detail. We enquired of Sri.Grashious Kuriakose whether his client is prepared to let out vacant building shown in Annexure-II photograph to the revision petitioner on condition that the revision petitioner surrenders the subject building to the landlord. Sri.Grashious Kuriakose's response was that the landlord himself needs the building shown in Annexure-II to practise holistic medicine. Sri.Surendran, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that even when PW1 was recalled and examined, his stand was that he does not have vacant possession of another building and he did not have a case that even if there is another building he has an independent need for that building.

(3.) We have anxiously considered the submissions addressed at the Bar. We feel that the matter should go back to the Rent Control Court. The question whether the respondent/ landlord has special reasons for not occupying the building shown in Annexure-II photographs for accomplishing the need projected in the present Rent Control Petition will have to be decided by that Court on the basis of the evidence already on record and further evidence to be adduced by the parties.