Kerala High Court
K.C. Mathew vs D. Aruna on 26 May, 2014
Author: P.Ubaid
Bench: K.T.Sankaran, P.Ubaid
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID
MONDAY,THE 26TH DAY OF MAY 2014/5TH JYAISHTA, 1936
RCRev..No. 168 of 2013 ()
--------------------------
RCP 161/2007 of PRL.MUNSIFF COURT- I, KOZHIKODE-
IN RCA 22/2011 of 1ST ADDL RENT CONTROL AAPPELLATE AUTHORITY1ST ADDL
DISTRICT COURT,KOZHIKODE
--------
REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS IN RCA/RESPONDENTS IN RCP:-:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. K.C. MATHEW,
S/O.CHERUKUTTY, DOING BUSINESS AT DOOR NO.7/721
MOOLEPAT STATIONARY, S.M.STREET, NAGARAMAMSOM DESOM,
KOZHIKODE - 1.
2. K.C.JAMES,
S/O.CHERUKUTTY, DOING BUSINESS AT DOOR NO.7/721
MOOLEPAT STATIONARY, S.M.STREET, NAGARAMAMSOM DESOM
KOZHIKODE - 1.
BY ADVS.SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
SRI.BIJU VARGHESE ABRAHAM
SRI.K.M.ANEESH
SRI.S.NIKHIL SANKAR
SRI.ADARSH KUMAR
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT IN RCA/PETITIONER IN RCP:-:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. ARUNA,
W/O.A.RAJA VENKATARAMAN, RESIDING AT "AISWARYA",
O, OI, CHALAPPURAM, KASABA AMSOM
DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK.
BY ADVS. SRI.P.K.SAJEEV
SRI.V.SREENATH
THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 03/03/2014 ALONG WITH RCR. 249/2013, THE COURT
ON 26-05-2014, PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
BP
K.T.SANKARAN & P.UBAID,JJ. 'C.R'
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
R.C.R Nos.168 & 249 of 2013
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dated this the 26th May, 2014
O R D E R
P.Ubaid,J.
The landlady, and also the tenants, in a proceeding for eviction brought under Section 11 (3) and 11 (4) (iii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 are now before this Court in revision in view of the divergent findings of the courts below. The landlady brought RCP No.161 of 2007 before the Rent Control Court -I (Munsiff Court-I), Kozhikode for eviction of the tenants on the ground of bona fide need, and also on the ground that the tenants have acquired many other buildings after the commencement of the tenancy. The landlady obtained the petition schedule building under a settlement deed executed by her father Doraiswami, in the year 2003. The petition schedule building was taken on rent by one Cherukutti, the predecessor in interest of the present tenants, from the father of the petitioner years back. On the death of Cherukutty, the tenancy devolved upon the legal heirs who R.C.R Nos.168 & 249 of 2013 2 are the respondents in the eviction proceedings. Though the rent initially was very low, it was subsequently raised to 2000/- in January, 2007. The tenants have been running a stationery business by name "Mooleppattu Stationary" in the tenanted premises. The landlady's husband Raja Venkita Raman is an experienced Medical Practitioner. His father Venkitaraman was also an established Doctor, who had his own clinic in a rented building near the Pushpa Theatre, Kallai Road, Kozhikode. The petitioner's husband Raja Venkittaraman started practice along with his father in the said building on completion of his course in medicine. In the year 2001, the landlord of the said building filed RCP No.124 of 2001 before the Rent Control Court (Munsiff Court -II) Kozhikode for eviction of Dr.Venkittaraman from the said tenanted building. In the said proceedings, eviction was ordered by the court, against which Dr.Venkittaraman filed RCA No.130 of 2005 before the Appellate Authority. On the death of Dr.Venkittaraman, his son Raja Venkittaraman, who is the husband of the landlady in this case, got himself impleaded and continued the said proceedings. However, he lost his case in appeal, and the order of eviction has R.C.R Nos.168 & 249 of 2013 3 become final. The landlady in this case, and her husband apprehend that at any time Dr.Raja Venkittaraman may be expelled from the premises in execution of the order of eviction in RCP No.124/2001. Dr.Raja Venkittaraman has no room or building of his own for his practice as Doctor and so he depends upon his wife, who has her own building in the Kozhikode Town. Finding that Dr.Raja Venkittaraman will have to vacate the premises on the Kallai Road, Calicut, his wife brought proceedings for eviction of the tenants in this case from the petition schedule building. Her case is that her husband has no room or building of his own, and she has no other building in her possession to accommodate her husband. In case, her husband is evicted from the tenanted premises in execution of the order in RCP 124 of 2001, he will have no place to practice his profession, and so the landlady bona fide needs her own building to accommodate her husband who wants to start a clinic of his own in the petition schedule building. It is her further case that the tenants have in fact acquired so many buildings after the tenancy and they are in possession of those buildings which are more than sufficient for their requirements.
R.C.R Nos.168 & 249 of 2013 4
2. The tenants entered appearance in the trial court and filed counter statement resisting the prayer for eviction on the contention that the landlady's husband Dr.Raja Venkittaraman is not at all dependent on her, because he has been continuing in the other tenanted premises on the Kallai Road, Calicut under a new arrangement with the landlord of the said building, that he has been confortably and conveniently continuing his practice there, that he has no intention at all to start another clinic in the petition schedule building, that the attempt of the landlady has been to evict the tenants somehow and sell the premises to the owner of an adjacent commercial complex known as "Land World Centre', and that the present claim on the ground of bona fide need is only a ruse for eviction. As regards the other claim brought under Section 11 4 (iii) of the Act, the definite case pleaded by the tenants is that the two rooms mentioned by the landlady in the petition as Building Nos.10/741, 10/743 are in fact the godown of the present business being conducted in the tenanted premises and that these two rooms do not have any business prospects attracting customers directly. As regards another building R.C.R Nos.168 & 249 of 2013 5 No.11/38 mentioned in the eviction petition, the definite case of the tenants is that the said building is in the possession of one Partnership firm by name 'Mooleppatu Enterprises', and the tenants have nothing to do with the said building. As regards yet another building at Kuttiyilthazham mentioned in the petition, their case is that the said building is far away from the Kozhikode Town, and the present business cannot be conducted profitably in the said building.
3. The trial court formulated the points for decision, and recorded oral and documentary evidence on both sides. The landlady was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 and A8 were marked on her side. Four witnesses including the 1st respondent were examined and Exts.B1 to B41 were marked on the side of the tenants. The reports and the sketch submitted by the Advocate Commissioner appointed by the trial court were marked as Exts.C1, C1 (a) , C2 and C2 (a).
4. On an appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the Rent Control Court found that the tenants have acquired buildings, which are reasonably sufficient for their business purposes and that the landlady bona fide needs the petition schedule building for her husband to start a clinic of R.C.R Nos.168 & 249 of 2013 6 his own. Accordingly, the Rent Control Court granted eviction on both the grounds, by order dated 20.12.2010. Aggrieved by the order of eviction, the tenants approached the Rent Control Appellate Authority (District Court), Kozhikode with RCA No.22 of 2011. In appeal, the Appellate Authority (First Additional District Judge), Kozhikode concurred with the findings of the trial court under Section 11 (4) (iii) of the Act, but reversed the finding of the trial court under Section 11(3) of the Act. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed in part, confirming the order of eviction under Section 11 (4) (iii) of the Act, but setting aside the order of eviction passed by the trial court under Section 11 (3) of the Act. The finding of the Appellate Authority is that the landlady has a consultation room attached to her father's building, which is just adjacent to her house, and if at all her husband wants to start a clinic, the said room which is now being used as a consultation room, can very well be used for the proposed clinic.
5. Aggrieved by the finding of the Appellate Authority under Section 11 (3) of the Act in favour of the tenants, the landlady brought Rent Control Revision 249/2013. Aggrieved by the other findings confirming the order of eviction under R.C.R Nos.168 & 249 of 2013 7 Section 11 (4) (iii) of the Act, tenants brought RCR No.168/2013. Both the revision petitions are being disposed of by this common order.
6. There is no dispute regarding the landlord-tenant relationship in this case. The landlady in this case seeks eviction of the tenants, on the ground that she requires the building for her husband to start a clinic of his own. Admittedly, the husband of the landlady is a Doctor by profession. It has come out in evidence that he started his practice with his father Dr. Venkittaraman in a building on the Kallai Road, Calicut , near the Pushpa Theatre and that he has been continuing in the said premises as Doctor , even after the delivery of the said building as per Exts.A1 and A2 delivery account and report in execution of the order in RCP No.124/2001. There is no dispute regarding the fact that there is a consulting room attached to the house of Dr.Venkittaraman (father-in-law of the landlady). Dr.Venkittaraman is no more, and the said building is in the possession of his wife. There is absolutely nothing to show that there is any such Clinic or Consultation Room attached to the house where the landlady and her husband reside. The R.C.R Nos.168 & 249 of 2013 8 tenants in this case dispute the alleged dependency of the landlady's husband on two grouns. One is that the landlady has already a consulting room attached to her father's house, which can well be used as a clinic. The other ground is that so long as the landlady's husband continues in the building on the Kallai Road, even after Exts.A1 and A2 delivery in execution of the order in RCP No.124 of 2001, he cannot claim to be dependent on his wife for another building.
7. Of course, the landlady examined as PW1 has given definite and consistent evidence proving the bona fide need alleged in the petition. She is definite in her evidence that she does not have any other building or room in her possession to accommodate her husband, and that her husband is in fact determined to start a clinic of his own in the petition schedule building which is at a very busy part of the Kozhikode Town. One contention raised by the tenants is that it is not an ideal location for a clinic, and that parking facility is not available there. The concern of a Doctor in choosing an ideal place for his clinic, will always be the patients who come there for his service, and such patients R.C.R Nos.168 & 249 of 2013 9 will not seriously think of parking facilities. There is another famous Dental Clinic within a very short distance from the petition schedule building. Admittedly the petition schedule building is situated at an ideal locality. Just because it is commercially important for trade and commercial purpose, it cannot be said that a Doctor cannot comfortably and lucratively practice his profession at such a locality.
8. Any need or requirement, which is rational and reasonable can be projected under Section 11 (3) of the Act. If the court is satisfied that the need projected is for a lawful purpose and that it is not a mere wish or an irrational desire or a fancy wish, the need can be accepted by the court, if the court finds determination in the need projected by the landlord for his own purposes or for the purposes of his dependent. In this case, the bona bona fide need stands well proved. It has come out in evidence that the premises where the husband of the landlady now continues as Doctor, stands already delivered in execution of an order of eviction, but in the interest of the patients or on the ground of some sympathy to accommodate the Doctor till he gets a suitable premises, he was allowed to continue there. There is nothing R.C.R Nos.168 & 249 of 2013 10 to show that he has been continuing there under any rental arrangement after Ext.A1 and A2 delivery. The tenants in this case have no case that the landlady's husband Dr.Raja Venkittaraman has created a new tenancy with the landlord with respect to building No.19/1823 on the Kallai Road, Kozhikode. The evidence of the landlady is well convincing that at any time her husband will have to vacate the premises, and he cannot continue there for a longer period. When the tenants have no specific case or pleading that the landlady's husband has been continuing in the said premises under any tenancy agreement, the court will have to accept the case of the landlady and her husband, that it is only a permissive occupation, to continue till alternative arrangements are made and that Dr.Raja Venkittaraman has no legal right to continue in the said premises.
9. Dependancy as meant under Section 11 (3) of the Act involves two situations. One is a situation where the dependent projected in the petition does not have a building or room of his own to accommodate himself. The second situation is some sort of relationship between the landlord and the projected dependent; whether it be blood R.C.R Nos.168 & 249 of 2013 11 relationship or relationship by marriage or some family relationship . As there could be dependency between spouse or between parents and children or between brothers and sisters, there can be such dependency between cousins or other near relatives or even between brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law. Thus, a wide range of relationship under which one could legitimately or reasonably look to another for help by way of some accommodation, providing any building or room for some trade or business purposes would come under Section 11 (3) of the Act. Such a relationship or such a dependency is not disputed in this case by the tenants.
10. In this case, the main argument of the learned counsel for the tenants is on the other aspect of dependency that so long as the husband of the landlady continues his profession in another premises he cannot be said to be dependent on his wife for a building. But on this aspect, we have already cleared the point that the husband of the landlady has no legal right to continue in the said premises as tenant or otherwise, under any lawful arrangement, and it has come out in evidence that he has been just continuing there on permission till he could find out some alternative R.C.R Nos.168 & 249 of 2013 12 arrangement. In the absence of anything to show that the husband of landlady has some legal right to continue in the said premises, his dependency on his wife for a building can not at all be disputed.
11. Yet another ground on which the tenants dispute dependancy is that there is a consultation room attached to the house of Dr.Raja Venkittaraman. It has come out in evidence that there is such a consultation room with separate building number. But it is a fact that the said consultation room is attached to the house of late Dr.Venkittaraman and the said building is now in the possession of his wife. Admittedly, the landlady and her husband reside in a separate building, though adjacent. The said consultation room is not in between the residential building of the landlady and the other residential building in the possession of her mother-in-law. So long as the said consultation room is not a room attached to the house of the landlady, the dependency of her husband cannot be disputed on the ground that the said room can be used as a clinic. There is much difference between a clinic and a house consultation room. So far as a Doctor is concerned, house R.C.R Nos.168 & 249 of 2013 13 consultation is part of his service, whereas clinic or hospital will always be part of his profession. Just because a Doctor has a consultation room attached to his house, his right or determination to start a clinic or hospital of his own at some other place cannot be disputed or questioned by anybody. Evidence will satisfy that the husband of the landlady can comfortably and lucratively run a clinic of his own in the petition schedule building. There is nothing to substantiate the contention of the tenants that the attempt of the landlady has been somehow to evict the tenants and then sell the premises to the owner of Land World Centre, which is an adjacent commercial complex. There is nothing to show that the present eviction proceeding brought by the landlady is a ruse for eviction.
12. It is settled position that when the Rent Control Court is well satisfied that the need projected by the landlady is genuine, and that the landlord needs the building for such genuine purpose, the Court will have to order eviction. The affluence of the landlord or the projected dependent will not stand in the way of granting eviction, if the need alleged is proved to be genuine and bona fide. R.C.R Nos.168 & 249 of 2013 14 Even a person having much wealth or income from other sources can have a determination to have a business activity of his own as an additional source of income, and even in such cases, eviction will have to be granted, if the Court is satisfied of the genuineness of the need or the determination to carry out the need. In Deep Chandra Juneja V. Lajwanti Kathuria (Dead) through LRS [(2008) 8 SCC 497], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the landlord is the best judge of his requirement, and the court cannot sit in judgment over the wisdom of the landlord in his determination regarding the need projected in the eviction proceeding. In this case, we have found that the consulting room attached to the house in the possession of the landlady's mother-in-law will not provide sufficient and convenient space for the requirements of the husband of the landlady. His requirement is to start a clinic of his own with necessary facilities and amenities. The decision of this Court in Venugopalan Nair Vs. Muhammad Kunju [2010 (1) KLT 971], is also on the point that the Rent Control Court cannot sit in judgment over the wisdom of the landlord. R.C.R Nos.168 & 249 of 2013 15
13. Of course, the trial court found in favour of the landlady that just because the building in the possession of her father-in-law has a consultation room attached to it, the right of her husband to start a clinic of his own at some other place cannot be disputed. The Appellate Authority took an erroneous view that the Doctor can set up his clinic in the said house consultation room. There is no doubt that such a view is erroneous so far as a Doctor's profession is concerned. We find that the approach of the Appellate Authority on this aspect is quite erroneous, and it requires to be corrected by interference in revision. We find that the landlady has well proved a case of bona fide need. There is absolutely nothing to show that the landlady has any other building in her possession to accommodate her husband for a clinic of his own. As already stated, a clinic is different from house consultation. There is nothing to show that the husband of the landlady has any building of his own. In the above circumstances, we find that the landlady in this case is entitled to get an order of eviction under Section 11 (3) of the Act. The tenants have not adduced any evidence to show that other vacant buildings are not available in the same R.C.R Nos.168 & 249 of 2013 16 locality. They have also not adduced any evidence to show that they are solely depending on the business being conducted in the tenanted premises. Accordingly, the judgment of the Appellate Authority as regards the ground for eviction under Section 11 (3) of the Act is liable to be set aside and the order of the Trial Court will have to be restored. A mere consulting room attached to the house will not meet the requirements of a clinic with its own facilities and amenities. It would be idle to contend that a clinic cannot be run in a busy part of the town having business prospects otherwise. It must be the decision and determination of the landlady and her dependent, in their best judgment, where they could start a clinic and where it is ideal for such a clinic. We find that the requirement projected by the landlady in this case is quite genuine, and so the landlady will have to be granted an order of eviction under Section 11 (3) of the Act.
14. Another ground for eviction concurrently found in favour of the landlady, is that the tenants have acquired their own buildings or premises. In the eviction petition, the landlady has mentioned some buildings acquired by the tenants. Admittedly, the tenants are in possession of the R.C.R Nos.168 & 249 of 2013 17 room Nos.10/741 and 10/743 which are within a very short distance from the tenanted premises. The trial court found against the tenants under Section 11 (4) (iii) of the Act that these two rooms are reasonably sufficient for their requirements. The landlady has also mentioned another building in Cherooty Road, and yet another building which is about 10 kms away from the Kozhikode Town. Of course, as regards these two buildings, the trial court found that one is far away from the town, and the other building in Cherooty Road is not proved to be in the possession of the tenants.. But in appeal, the Appellate Authority found that the room Nos.10/741 and 10/743 lying within a short distance from the tenanted premises cannot be said to be reasonably sufficient for the business being conducted in the tenanted premises, but the other building in Cherooty Road is in fact in the possession of the tenants, though the business therein is in the name of some other partnership firm, and the said building is reasonably sufficient for the requirements of the tenants. When the trial court found against the tenants on the basis of two buildings adjacent to the tenanted premises, the Appellate Authority found on the basis of another R.C.R Nos.168 & 249 of 2013 18 building, which is in a different locality, though part of the Kozhikode Town. When the two Authorities have given different reasonings, we will have to discuss the evidence regarding the buildings, though the ultimate finding under Section 11 (4) (iii) of the Act is concurrently against the tenants.
15. As regards room Nos.10/741 and 10/743, admittedly in the possession of the tenants, the finding of the trial court is that these two rooms are reasonably sufficient for their requirements. It has come out in evidence that these two rooms are on the side of a pocket road, where customers cannot be attracted, though within a short distance from the tenanted premises. It is true that Ext.A5 document and Exts. B4 to B12 tax assessment orders will show that the business being conducted in the room Nos10/741 and 10/743 is considered as a separate business. But the case of the tenants is that these two rooms are in fact, their godown. In appeal the Appellate Authority found that these two rooms, though adjacent to the tenanted premises, are on a pocket road, and that the present business being conducted in the tenanted premises cannot R.C.R Nos.168 & 249 of 2013 19 be profitably conducted in these two rooms. However, the Appellate Authority found against the tenants as regards the room No.11/38 on the Cherooty Road where the business by name 'Mooleppattu Enterprises is being conducted. The trade name of the business conducted in the tenanted premises is 'Mooleppattu Stationery'. The case of the landlady is that the two business concerns belong to the tenants, though under slightly different names, and that the room No.11/38 is actually in the possession of the tenants. As regards this building, the Appellate Authority found that this room is reasonably sufficient for the requirements of the tenants.
16. On a perusal of the case records, and on an appreciation of the evidence on both sides, we find that these three rooms cannot be said to be reasonably sufficient for the requirements of the tenants, and that the room No.11/38 on the Cherooty Road is not in fact in the possession of the tenants. Evidence well satisfies us that the said room is in the possession of a partnership firm, wherein, one of the tenants and his wife, are only partners. There is no satisfactory evidence to prove that Room No.11/38 is in R.C.R Nos.168 & 249 of 2013 20 the actual possession of the tenants herein. The business now being conducted therein is a different business, and the said business belongs to a different partnership firm. Such a firm was constituted much prior to the initiation of eviction proceedings by the landlady herein. In this case, the eviction proceedings started in 2007, but the partnership doing business in the Building No.11/38 on the Cherooty Road was formed in 2001. In such circumstance, it cannot be found that such a partnership firm was created by the tenants, in the name of their near relatives to make it appear that the said building is in the possession of a different partnership firm.
17. Of course, the landlord can obtain an order of eviction under Section 11 (4) (iii) of the Act, if the landlord could satisfy the Court that the tenant has acquired a building of his own, or has otherwise come in possession of another building as tenant or otherwise. Once acquisition of such a building is proved by the landlord or admitted by the tenant, the burden would shift to the tenant to prove that the said building is not reasonably sufficient for his requirements. The landlord can obtain order of eviction under Section 11 (4) (iii) R.C.R Nos.168 & 249 of 2013 21 of the Act only if the Court finds that the building subsequently acquired by the tenant is reasonably sufficient for his requirements. In S.N.D.P Union v. Vamana Naik [1993 (3) KLT 215], this Court held that reasonable sufficiency meant under Section 11 (4) (iii) of the Act cannot be tested merely on the assertion of the tenant that such and such are his requirements. In Ahammed v. Krishnalal [2005 (3) KLT 1004], this Court held that once it is proved or admitted that the tenant has got another alternate building or has come in possession of another building as tenant or otherwise, the burden would shift to him to prove that the said building is not reasonably sufficient for his requirements. This Court also held that merely because the subsequently acquired building is lesser in area, the court cannot find that it is not reasonably sufficient for the requirements of the tenant, and the said fact that it is lesser in space cannot be a ground to disallow eviction under Section 11 (4) (iii) of the Act.
18. In Parvathy Krishnan v. Joseph Alias Jose [2007 (4) KLT 1062], this Court held that even in a case where one or the other legal representative of the deceased R.C.R Nos.168 & 249 of 2013 22 tenant acquired a building eviction under Section 11 (4) (iii) of the Act could be sought by the landlord. It doesn't matter whether the acquisition is made by all the legal representatives of the deceased tenant, or by one or the other. In the said case, this Court also held that the burden would shift to the tenant to prove that the building subsequently acquired by him is not reasonably sufficient for his requirements, once such acquisition is admitted or proved.
19. As regards Room Nos.10/741 and 10/743, the Appellate Authority found that these two rooms cannot be found to be reasonably sufficient because the present business cannot be conveniently and profitably conducted in these two rooms. We concur with the findings of the Appellate Authority as regards these two rooms, but we are not inclined to accept the finding of the Appellate Authority regarding Room No.11/38, which lies away from the tenanted premises in a different area where good prospects cannot be found for stationery business. We also find on the basis of evidence that the said room is not, in fact, in the possession of the tenants. We find on evidence that the said room is in R.C.R Nos.168 & 249 of 2013 23 the possession of a different partnership firm, conducting a different business there, though one of the tenants and his wife are partners in the said firm.
20. Reasonable sufficiency of the building as meant under Section 11 (4) (iii) of the Act cannot be decided solely on the basis of area of the building. It does not matter whether the total space of the subsequently acquired building is lesser or larger. So far as the business being conducted in the tenanted premises is concerned, the Court will have to consider whether such a business can be conveniently done in the subsequently acquired premises or whether the nature and circumstances of the subsequently acquired building are such that the present business could be conveniently conducted there. It does not matter whether the present business could be accommodated there in terms of space. Space alone cannot be the concern of the Court in such a circumstance. In this case, it has come out from the report of the Advocate Commissioner that the building No.11/38 lies away from the tenanted premises, in a different area, though as part of the Kozhikode Town, where there are so many institutions and business concerns, but the Advocate R.C.R Nos.168 & 249 of 2013 24 Commissioner could not see any stationery business there. There is no doubt that such an area will not have the business prospects of an area like S.M.Street, Kozhikode. The question of reasonable sufficiency must be assessed by the Court in terms of the nature of the business and also in terms of the requirements of the business. If the business now being conducted in the tenanted premises cannot be conveniently and comfortably conducted in the subsequently acquired premises where customers cannot be attracted for such a business, the court cannot find reasonable sufficiency as meant under Section 11 (4) (iii) of the Act. Anyway in this case, we find that the said building No.11/38 is not in fact in the possession of the tenants. In such a circumstance, we cannot concur with the findings of the Appellate Authority and the Trial Court.
21. We find that the husband of the landlady is dependent on the landlady for the reason that he does not have any building of his own for accommodating himself, and he has no legal right to continue in the premises where now he practices his profession on the permission granted by the landlord of the said premises to continue there till he could R.C.R Nos.168 & 249 of 2013 25 obtain a suitable accommodation of his own. We also find that the need and determination of the husband of the landlady to have a clinic of his own in the tenanted premises cannot be doubted, and eviction cannot be denied simply on the ground that there is a consulting room attached to the house in the possession of his mother. Practice of profession in a consulting room as part of service will not satisfy the requirements of starting a clinic in an ideal location as part of medical profession. Further, we find that the building No.11/38 mentioned by the landlady in the petition, is not in fact in their possession. The Room Nos.10/741 and 10/743 are not in fact reasonably sufficient for the requirements of the tenants, as meant under Section 11 (4) (iii) of the Act. Just because the tenant has in his possession, or has acquired some buildings somewhere, eviction cannot be allowed by the court, when the materials and circumstances would not prove that those buildings are reasonably sufficient for the requirements of the tenants.
22. In the light of the above findings made by us, the order of eviction concurrently granted by the two Authorities below under Section 11 (4) (iii) of the Act will have to be set R.C.R Nos.168 & 249 of 2013 26 aside. As regards the claim under Section 11 (3) of the Act, the judgment of the Appellate Authority disallowing the said claim will have to be set aside and the order of eviction granted by the Rent Control Court will have to be confirmed and restored. Accordingly, the Rent Control Petition brought by the landlady will have to be allowed in part, granting eviction under Section 11 (3) of the act, but disallowing eviction under Section 11 (4) (iii) of the Act. In the particular facts and circumstances, we find that the parties will have to bear their respective costs.
In the result, RCR No.168 of 2013 brought by the tenants is allowed. The order of eviction granted concurrently by the two Authorities below under Section 11 (4) (iii) of the Act is set aside. RCR No.249 of 2013 brought by the landlady is also allowed. Accordingly, the judgment of the Appellate Authority in RCA 22 of 2011 disallowing eviction under Section 11 (3) of the Act is set aside and the order of the Rent Control Court granting eviction under Section 11 (3) of the Act is confirmed and restored. Consequently, RCP No.161 of 2007 will stand allowed under Section Section 11 (3) of the Act and disallowed under Section 11 (4) (iii) of the Act. R.C.R Nos.168 & 249 of 2013 27 The parties will bear their respective costs of these proceedings. The tenants are given time till 31.8.2014 to vacate the premises on payment of rent promptly, and till 31.8.2014 execution proceedings will stand stayed.
Sd/-
(K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE) Sd/-
(P.UBAID, JUDGE) ma /True copy/ P.S to Judge