Kerala High Court
Sarathchandran vs Abdul Azeez on 4 April, 2013
Author: A.V. Ramakrishna Pillai
Bench: T.R.Ramachandran Nair, A.V.Ramakrishna Pillai
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI
THURSDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2013/14TH CHAITHRA 1935
RCRev..No. 137 of 2013 ()
--------------------------
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN RCA.28/2009 DTD:11.4.2010 OF THE RENT CONTROL
APPELLATE AUTHORITY, MAVELIKARA AND
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN RCP.3/2006 DTD: 29.9.09 OF THE RENT
CONTROLLER, KAYAMKULAM.
.....................................................
REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/COUNTER PETITIONER :
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SARATHCHANDRAN, AGED 56 YEARS,
S/O.LEKSHMANAN, MAVANAL VEEDU, KANDALLOOR THEKKUM MURI,
KANDALLOOR VILLAGE.
BY ADV. SRI.P.SREEKUMAR
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS :
--------------------------------------------------------------------
1. ABDUL AZEEZ, AGED 48 YEARS,
S/O.ABDUL RAHUMAN RAWTHER, THAYYIL VADAKKETHIL
CHARAKKAVOM MURI, KAYAMKULAM - 685 771.
2. VAJIBA, AGED 41 YEARS,
W/O.ABDUL AZEEZ, THAYYIL VADAKKETHIL, CHARAKKAVOM MURI
KAYAMKULAM - 685 771.
3. MOHAMMAD FAREEZA @ SHAJI, AGED 37 YEARS
THAYYIL VADAKKETHIL, CHARAKKAVOM MURI,
KAYAMKULAM - 685 771.
THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
04-04-2013 ALONG WITH R.C.R. NO.139/2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME
DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
AMV
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &
A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JJ.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
R.C.R. Nos. 137 & 139 of 2013
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
DATED THIS THE 4th DAY OF APRIL, 2013
O R D E R
Ramachandran Nair, J.
These revision petitions are filed by two different tenants who have been the appellants in R.C.A. Nos.28/2009 and 29/2009 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Mavelikkara. After elaborate consideration of the matter, eviction has been ordered mainly under Section 11(4)(iv) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act (for short 'the Act'), viz. on the ground of reconstruction.
2. We heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Shri P. Sreekumar. He raised the following arguments: (a) Actually, in the area where the building is situated, the steps for acquisition are at the final stage; (b) the plan and licence produced are not current ones; and (c) if at all there can be a reconstruction, the landlord will have to prove before the Rent Controller itself that the plan and licence have been renewed and all the five rooms in a raw are available. According to the petitioners, actually the order is one of remand to the Rent Control Court but the matter is being RCR 137 & 139 of 2013 -2- considered in execution.
3. Regarding the question whether the acquisition proceedings are pending or not, no evidence could be adduced by the petitioners and therefore both the authorities have rightly rejected the said contention. We are also of the view that as no evidence could be adduced, the court below cannot be said to have acted perversely in rejecting the said contention.
4. The important aspect is whether the building requires reconstruction. On this aspect, a detailed consideration has been made by the Rent Control Court, in the light of the well settled principles. The area in question is a developing one, being in an important locality in Kayamakulam Municipality. There are all round developments which have been considered by the Rent Control Court. It was held that the condition of the building is a larger concept which includes considerations of social surroundings and allied factors. We find that the authorities below have not acted perversely in accepting the plea of the landlord. In fact, the landlord has proved before the Court, Ext.A5 building plan which is of the year 2004, valid upto 2007. It was observed by the Rent Control Court that the landlords can be allowed eviction provided they get renewal of the same RCR 137 & 139 of 2013 -3- and accordingly eviction has been ordered making it clear that the landlords shall complete the construction of the proposed building within a period of one year from the date of getting possession of the petition schedule shop rooms and after such completion of reconstruction, the tenants shall be allotted one suitable room each in the newly constructed building, subject to their liability to pay its fair rent.
5. In the operative portion of the judgment, the Appellate Authority has directed that the landlords should convince the Rent Controller before surrendering the petition schedule shop rooms, whether they are in possession of the remaining rooms or in the occupation of the tenants. They should satisfy the Rent Controller that the remaining rooms in the building are with them for demolition and that they shall produce renewed plan and licence before the Rent Controller before the tenants surrendering possession for reconstruction. Even though learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the matter requires a reconsideration, evidently it is for the execution court to consider, since the judgment of the Appellate Authority is not by way of a remand to the Rent Control Court, as all the findings have been confirmed and the appeal stands dismissed. This Court RCR 137 & 139 of 2013 -4- also, in various decisions, has held that in such cases where a renewed licence and plan is required, the landlord can be directed to produce it in execution court before surrendering possession by the tenants. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the findings rendered, in exercise of the revisional powers, as the orders passed by the authorities below are not perverse.
6. It is submitted that the matter has been re-heard before the execution court and orders are expected to be pronounced today and that normally they will not get reasonable time before delivery of possession. It is also submitted that even the directions issued by the Appellate Authority have not been fully complied with by the landlords.
7. We find that the petitioners have to avail the remedy under Section 14 of the Act before the court concerned, if aggrieved by any order passed in execution. Therefore, we are not expressing any opinion on the same.
Therefore, we dismiss the revision petitions subject to the following directions:
If the order is adverse to the petitioners and if sufficient time is not RCR 137 & 139 of 2013 -5- granted for delivery of the rooms, the delivery of the rooms will be adjourned for a period of two weeks, for enabling the petitioners to get copies of the orders and to challenge it before the court concerned.
The Registry will communicate the operative portion of the order to the Munsiff's Court, Kayamkulam telephonically, today itself.
(T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) (A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JUDGE) kav/