Kerala High Court
Babu vs M/S.South Indian Bank Ltd on 27 September, 2013
Author: P.N. Ravindran
Bench: P.N.Ravindran, K.Ramakrishnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH 2016/2ND CHAITHRA, 1938
RCRev..No. 6 of 2014 ()
------------------------
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN RCA 97/2008 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE
AUTHORITY,THRISSUR DATED 27-09-2013
AGAINST THE ORDER IN RCP 84/1999 of RENT CONTROL COURT,THRISSUR
DATED 16-07-2008
PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 AND 5:-:
--------------------------------------------------
1. BABU
S/O.CHIRAYANKANDATH PALU, MISSION QUARTERS, THRISSUR.
2. S.PANDIT PAWER,
S/O.POWER SINDHU, C/O.AYODHYA JEWELLERY, M.M.ALI ROAD,
KOZHIKODE.
3. S.SALINI,
W/O.SADASIVA SAIT, UNITY ROAD, CHELAKKOTTUKARA,
THRISSUR - 5.
4. M/S.AYODHYA JEWELLERY,
M.O.ROAD, THRISSUR.
BY ADV. SRI.K.B.GANGESH
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND 4TH RESPONDENT:-:
-----------------------------------------------------
1. M/S.SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD.
HEAD OFFICE, MISSION QUARTERS, THRISSUR.
2. R.SINDHU,
W/O.RAO SAHAB, SUBASH NAGAR, KOZHIKODE - 5.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.V.BALAKRISHNA IYER (SR.)
R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.A.AUGUSTINE(AREEKATTEL)
R BY SRI.K.K.JOHN,SC,SOUTH INDIAN BANK
THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
22-03-2016 ALONG WITH RCR. 8/2014 AND OTHER CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT
ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
P.N. RAVINDRAN & K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JJ.
..................................................
R.C.R.No.6,8,9,10,11 & 12 of 2014
.......................................................
Dated this the 22nd day of March, 2016.
JUDGMENT
P.N. Ravindran, J:
R.C.R.Nos.6 and 11 of 2014, are revision petitions filed by the tenants in R.C.P.No.84 of 1999, R.C.R.Nos.8 and 12 of 2014 are revision petitions filed by the tenants in R.C.P.No.163 of 1999 and R.C.R.Nos.9 and 10 of 2014 are revision petitions filed by the tenants in R.C.P.No.55 of 1999, all on the files of the Rent Control Court, Thrissur, under section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short.
2. The common respondent in these revision petitions namely M/s.South Indian Bank Ltd., instituted the aforesaid rent control petitions, praying for an order of eviction under sections 11(7) and 11 (8) of the Act, in respect of three rooms situate on the ground floor of its own building. The landlord bank had in the rent control petitions stated that it is running the Bazar Branch in the first and second floors of its own building situate on Municipal Office Road, Thrissur, that three rooms in the ground floor of the said building have been let out to tenants and that it needs the said rooms for the purpose of starting a gold loan counter, a demand draft shoppe (D.D. Shoppe) and an A.T.M counter for the purpose of providing such facilities to its R.C.R.No.6,8,9,10,11 & 12 of 2014 2 customers. The bank also contended that it needs the petition schedule rooms also for the purpose of opening a service branch. In the rent control petition it was inter alia stated that presently, the NRI branch of the bank is located in rented premises for which the rent payable is Rs.40,077/- per month and that having regard to the rate of rent prevailing in the locality, the benefit accruing to the bank by utilizing the ground floor of the petition schedule building for the aforesaid purposes would be immense. It was contended that the benefits that will accrue to the bank will outweigh the hardship caused to the tenants. The landlord had also contended that it is a public institution entitled to an order of eviction under section 11(7) of the Act as well. In each of the rent control petitions it was specifically stated that the petition for eviction is signed by Mr.Anto C.Kalliyath, Assistant General Manager, Regional Office, Thrissur, who is one of the principal officers of the bank.
3. Upon receipt of notice, the tenants entered appearance and filed separate counter statements resisting the petitions for eviction. They did not however deny and dispute the averment in the rent control petition that the petition is signed by Mr.Anto C.Kalliyath, Assistant General Manager, Regional Office, Thrissur, who is one of the principal officers of the bank. It was however contended in vague R.C.R.No.6,8,9,10,11 & 12 of 2014 3 terms that the petition is not legally maintainable. Such an averment was made in paragraph-3 of the counter statement, wherein the principal contention raised is that section 11(7) of the Act has no application to the case on hand for the reason that the landlord is not a public institution, but a banking company doing business for the benefit of its share holders and it is therefore not different from any other proprietary or partnership business. The tenants also contended that the entire second floor of the building was lying vacant for a long time and that the bank has already started the DD Shoppe and the gold loan counter. As regards the ATM counter it was contended that, it requires only minimum space and such space is available by the side of the staircase on the ground floor of the building. The tenants also contended that they and their family members are depending for their livelihood mainly on the income derived from the business carried on in the petition schedule building and that they do not have independent rooms to accommodate their businesses. They also contended that there is keen competition in their business at Thrissur from others who are far more financially sound, that their business has for long been associated with the locality where the petition schedule building is situate and that the Municipal Office road is the most suitable place for their business. It was contended that in such R.C.R.No.6,8,9,10,11 & 12 of 2014 4 circumstances, if they are evicted, it will result in failure of business, in the face of keen competition. The tenants contended that the hardship caused to them will outweigh the advantage to the landlord. It is relevant in this context to note that the landlord had even in the petition for eviction averred that having regard to the urgency of the situation, after Exts.A5, A8 and A11 notices were issued, the bank was constrained to start the DD Shoppe and the gold loan counter on 19.5.1999 in the available space itself.
4. Before the rent control court, the Manager of the Bazar branch of the landlord bank, which is located in the very same building of which the petition schedule rooms are a part, was examined as PW1. The landlord also produced and marked Exts.A1 to A27. The fourth respondent in R.C.P.No.163 of 1995 was examined as RW1, the husband of the third respondent in R.C.P.No.84 of 1999 was examined as RW2, the first respondent in R.C.P.No.55 of 1999 was examined as RW3, the Accommodation Controller of Thrissur taluk was examined as RW4 and the Revenue Inspector of Thrissur Corporation was examined as RW5. The tenants also produced and marked Exts.B1 to B6. On application filed by the landlord, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to inspect the petition schedule rooms and the reports submitted by him were marked as Exts.C1 to C4. The negatives and R.C.R.No.6,8,9,10,11 & 12 of 2014 5 photographs produced by him were marked as Exts.C1(a) and C1(b) respectively. The Building Tax Assessment Register maintained by the Thrissur Municipality during the period from 1941 to 1945 which was produced on application filed by one of the parties was marked by consent as Ext.X1. The rent control court, after considering the rival contentions framed the following points for consideration:
1. Whether the petitioner bank is a public institution as claimed?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to get eviction u/s.11(7) of Kerala Building (L&R) Control Act?
3. Whether the petitioner need additional accommodation as alleged?
4. Whether the hardship caused to the tenant by granting the eviction to the petitioner will outweigh the advantage to the landlord?
5. Whether the respondents in R.C.P.No.163 of 1999 and are entitled to get protection u/s.11(7) of Kerala Building (L&R) Control Act?
6. Whether the petition as filed is maintainable?
7. Relief and cost?
5. The rent control court after considering the rival contentions held on Point No.5 that the tenants in R.C.P.No.163 of 1999 are not entitled to the protection available under section 11(17) of the Act. R.C.R.No.6,8,9,10,11 & 12 of 2014 6 Such a finding was entered on the premise that the original entrustment was not to the respondents in R.C.P.No.163 of 1999, but to their predecessors-in-interest. The said view finds support from the decision of a Larger Bench of this court in Prabhakaran v. Sulaikabi (2007 (2) KLT 103). The rent control court thereafter proceeded to consider the question whether the petitioner bank is a public institution as contemplated in section 11(7) of the Act and whether it is entitled to an order of eviction under section 11(7) of the Act. The rent control court held, relying on the decision of this court in Padmanabhan Nair v. Raghavan Nair (1964 KLT 1019) that the petitioner bank is not a public institution falling within the scope of section 11(7) of the Act and therefore, it is not entitled to an order of eviction thereunder. The rent control court thereafter considered the question whether the petitioner bank is entitled to an order of eviction under section 11(8) of the Act and whether the need for additional accommodation is bonafide and held on Point No.3 that the need put forward is bonafide. The rent control court thereafter proceeded to consider the question whether the hardship caused to the tenants by granting an order of eviction will outweigh the advantage to the landlord and decided the issue in favour of the landlord. The rent control court, however, dismissed the petitions for eviction by order R.C.R.No.6,8,9,10,11 & 12 of 2014 7 passed on 16.7.2008 on the short ground that the Assistant General Manager of the landlord bank is not authorized or competent to institute the petitions for eviction. It was held that in the absence of an averment in the petition that the Assistant General Manager who instituted the rent control petition had been authorized as contemplated in Article 157 of the Articles of Association of the landlord bank (Ext.A22), the petition for eviction is not maintainable. Challenging that order, the landlord bank filed R.C.A.Nos.90 of 2008, 89 of 2008 and 91 of 2008 respectively on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thrissur. Aggrieved by the findings entered by the rent control court under section 11(8) as well as the proviso to section 11(10) of the Act, the tenants filed R.C.A.Nos.97, 96 and 95 of 2008. The rent control appellate authority after considering the rival contentions held that the petitions for eviction are maintainable. The rent control appellate authority allowed R.C.A.Nos.90, 89 and 91 of 2008 filed by the landlord, dismissed R.C.A Nos.97, 96 and 95 of 2008 filed by the tenants and passed an order of eviction under section 11 (8) of the Act. The tenants, have aggrieved thereby, filed these revision petitions under section 20 of the Act.
6. Heard Sri. R.D. Shenoy, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners/tenants and Sri. S.V. Balakrishna Iyer, learned R.C.R.No.6,8,9,10,11 & 12 of 2014 8 Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent/landlord. Sri. R.D. Shenoy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners/tenants contended that the landlord has not in the petition for eviction averred that the person who has signed the petitions has been duly authorized either by a resolution passed by the Board of Directors or by a power of attorney issued by the competent authority of the bank to institute the petitions for eviction and therefore, the rent control petitions were rightly dismissed by the rent control court. Inviting our attention to Articles 119(xii), 122, 123 and 157 of Ext.A22 Memorandum of Association and Articles of Association of South Indian Bank Limited, learned senior counsel contended that only the Chairman or the Director of the bank can represent the landlord bank in suits and other legal proceedings, that though it is open to the Chairman to delegate the powers conferred on him by the Articles of Association to other Directors or such other officer or officers of the bank jointly or severally as power of attorney, the petitioner/landlord has not pleaded or proved that such authorisation has been given, that Article 157 of Ext.A22 Articles of Association does not enable the Assistant General Manager in the head office of the bank to represent the company and sign the pleadings and therefore, the instant rent control petitions though filed in the name of the bank by its Assistant General Manager R.C.R.No.6,8,9,10,11 & 12 of 2014 9 and signed by him are not maintainable and were rightly dismissed by the rent control court. Learned senior counsel also placed reliance on the decisions of the Delhi High Court in M/s.Nibro Limited v. National Insurance Col.Ltd (AIR 1991 Delhi 25) and the High Court of Calcutta in Al-Amin Seatrans Ltd. v. Owners and Party interested in Vessel M.V. 'Loyal Bird' (AIR 1995 Calcutta 169) in support of the said contention. Inviting our attention to the decision of a learned single Judge of this court in Krishna Pillai v. Madhavan Nair (1982 KLT 588), learned counsel contended that even though the tenants had not in their counter statements objected to the maintainability of the rent control petitions or the competence of the Assistant General Manager to institute the rent control petitions and to sign the pleadings, the tenants are not disabled from raising the point of law regarding the maintainability of the rent control petitions in view of the fact that it was incumbent on the petitioner to have pleaded that the person who has signed the petition for eviction was competent to represent the petitioner and to institute the rent control petition. Learned senior counsel contended that, in such circumstances, the finding entered by the rent control court that the rent control petitions were not validly instituted should have been upheld by the rent control court appellate authority. Learned senior counsel further submitted R.C.R.No.6,8,9,10,11 & 12 of 2014 10 that the landlord bank had even in the rent control petitions conceded that the DD Shoppe and the gold loan counter have already been established, that the only need that survived was the establishment of an ATM counter, that the very same landlord had obtained vacant possession of another premises situated adjacent to the petition schedule building by filing three rent control petitions, that a copy of the judgment passed by the rent control appellate authority upholding the order of eviction passed in the said cases, was produced before the rent control appellate authority along with I.A.No.3672 of 2012, an application filed by the tenants for the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the petition schedule premises in that case, but the said application was dismissed by the rent control appellate authority on the ground that the need put forward in that case is different from the need put forward in the instant cases. Learned senior counsel contended that as the landlord has obtained vacant possession of a portion of the ground floor of another building situate 50 meters away from the petition schedule building and an ATM counter can be conveniently established in the said premises, there is no reason or justification to grant an order of eviction in the instant cases. Learned senior counsel also invited our attention to the decisions of the Apex Court in Phiroze Bamanji Desai v. R.C.R.No.6,8,9,10,11 & 12 of 2014 11 Chandrakant M. Patel and others (AIR 1974 SC 1059), Bhaichand Ratanshi v. Laxmishanker Tribhoyan (AIR 1981 SC 1690), the decision of a learned singe judge of this court in Mandal Gopalan v. Rohini (1997 KLT 386) and the decision of a Division Bench of this court in K.C. Arjunan v. Edathil Pulikandi Eranu (1991 (2) KLJ 321) to contend for the position that though no burden is cast on either of the parties to prove the ingredients of the proviso to section 11(10) of the Act, the court below had a duty to evaluate the evidence and come to its own conclusion as to whether greater hardship will be caused to the tenants by passing an order of eviction. Learned senior counsel also submitted that as it has come out in evidence that the landlord has obtained vacant possession of rooms in the ground floor of another building situate 50 metres away from the petition schedule building, the landlord cannot justifiably contend that the advantage to the landlord will outweigh the hardship caused to the tenants. Learned senior counsel submitted that in such circumstances, the order of eviction passed by the rent control appellate authority is liable to be set aside and the rent control petitions liable to be dismissed.
7. Per contra Sri.S.V. Balakrishna Iyer, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the landlord bank submitted that though three rent control petitions had been filed in respect of another building wherein R.C.R.No.6,8,9,10,11 & 12 of 2014 12 the main branch of the very same bank is functioning, one of the rent control petitions was dismissed by a Division Bench of this court by order passed on 8.4.2014 in R.C.R.No.409 of 2010 [Welfare Stationary v. South Indian Bank (2014 2 KLT 328)] and therefore, the tenants cannot contend that the landlord has obtained possession of the entire rooms of the ground floor of that building. The learned senior counsel also submitted that apart from the fact that the said issue is now pending before the Hon'ble the Supreme Court in S.L.P(Civil) No.16609 of 2014, there is also the further fact that an order of eviction was sought in that case for the purpose of improving the facilities in the main branch and also for locating the NRI branch at Thrissur which is presently being run in tenanted premises and that a Division Bench of this court has held that shifting of the NRI branch will be an independent need falling under section 11(3) of the Act and not 11(8) of the Act. Learned senior counsel contended that the need put forward in the instant case is to start an ATM counter, a DD Shoppe and a gold loan counter in the Bazar branch to cater to the needs of customers of that branch and therefore, by no stretch of imagination can it be said that merely because an order of eviction has been passed in respect of a portion of the ground floor of another building wherein the main branch is situate, it will disentitle the landlord bank R.C.R.No.6,8,9,10,11 & 12 of 2014 13 from seeking an order of eviction of the tenanted premises involved in the instant case for the purpose of starting a DD Shoppe, ATM counter and gold loan counter and also for locating the service branch. The learned senior counsel contended that it was having regard to the exigencies of the situation that the DD Shoppe and the gold loan counter were established, that the said fact had been disclosed in the rent control petitions and that merely for the reason that even within the existing space available, the bank was constrained to open a DD Shoppe and a gold loan counter is not a reason to hold that the said facilities should not function in a place convenient for employees and for the customers of the bank. Learned senior counsel submitted that even in the rent control petitions it had been averred that it is to cater to the needs of aged customers and to prevent inconvenience and difficulties to customers and also to provide additional facilities to the customers that the bank decided to start separate counters for gold loan, a DD shoppe and an ATM counter and that the need put forward cannot be said to be an independent need falling outside the scope of section 11(8) of the Act. Learned senior counsel also submitted that the Reserve Bank of India has by Ext.A21 consent letter, given authorization to South Indian Bank to open a service branch in Thrissur district way back on 8.9.1999 and that it was having regard to R.C.R.No.6,8,9,10,11 & 12 of 2014 14 the said fact as well that the bank had applied for an order of eviction of the tenanted premises situate on the ground floor of its own building at M.O. Road, Thrissur. Learned senior counsel contended that none of the tenants had raised an issue as regards the maintainability of the petitions or the competence of the Assistant General Manager to sign the pleadings, that no issue as regards the maintainability of the petitions on that score had been raised or framed by the rent control court and therefore, the rent control court erred in proceeding to consider the question whether the petitions for eviction are maintainable. Learned senior counsel contended that apart from vaguely contending that the petitions for eviction are not maintainable and that too with reference to section 11(7) of the Act, the tenants had not questioned the competence of the Assistant General Manager to sign the pleadings or his power and authority to institute the rent control petition. Learned senior counsel contended that if such a contention has been raised in the counter statement filed in June, the landlord could have suitably amended the rent control petition or produced letters of authorization or a power of attorney or even asked for permission to withdraw the rent control petitions with liberty to file fresh petitions after curing the defect, but instead of raising such a contention in the pleadings, during the course of arguments, even R.C.R.No.6,8,9,10,11 & 12 of 2014 15 without an issue being raised in that regard, it was contended that the rent control petitions are not maintainable for the reason that it is not one filed by the Director or the Chairman of the bank or any other person duly authorized by the Board of Directors of the bank or by its Chairman. Inviting our attention to the decision of the Apex Court in United Bank of India v. Naresh Kumar and others (AIR 1997 SC
3), learned senior counsel submitted that the dismissal of the rent control petitions on the ground that the petitions have not been signed and verified by a competent person was not warranted and was rightly set aside by the appellate authority. Learned senior counsel contended that the rent control court and the appellate authority have after a thorough analysis of the pleadings and the evidence on record held that the need put forward under section 11(8) of the Act is bonafide and also held that the advantage to the landlord will outweigh the hardship caused to the tenant and that the said findings do not merit interference by this court.
8. We have considered the submissions made at the Bar by learned counsel appearing on either side. We have also gone through the pleadings and the materials on record. The landlord bank had in the rent control petitions stated in categorical terms that the Assistant General Manager of the bank, who has signed the petition, is one of R.C.R.No.6,8,9,10,11 & 12 of 2014 16 the principal officers of the bank. Though the tenants had entered appearance and filed separate counter statements, they did not deny or dispute the said averment. They did not raise a contention that Sri. Anto C. Kalliyath, Assistant General Manager of the bank in its regional office at Thrissur is not one of the principal officers of the petitioner bank. They did not raise a contention that he has not been duly authorized to sign the pleadings or to institute the rent control petitions on behalf of the bank. In the cause title of the rent control petition, the petitioner is described as "South Indian Bank Ltd., Head Office, Mission Quarters, Thrissur 680001". Though in the counter statement it was contended that the petition is not maintainable, the said averment was with reference to the prayer for eviction under section 11(7) of the Act. That apart, none of the tenants who were examined as RWs 1 to 3 had stated even in the affidavits filed by them in lieu of chief examination that Sri.Anto C. Kalliyath was not duly authorized to sign the petitions and to present the petitions for eviction. PW1, the Branch Manager of the Bazar branch was not cross examined on that aspect. The Apex Court has in United Bank of India v. Naresh Kumar and others (1997 SC 3) held as follows in an identical situation:
"10. It cannot be disputed that a company like the R.C.R.No.6,8,9,10,11 & 12 of 2014 17 appellant can sue and be sued in its own name. Under Order 6 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure a pleading is required to be signed by the party and its pleader, if any. As a company is a juristic entity it is obvious that some person has to sign the pleadings on behalf of the company. Order 29 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, therefore, provides that in a suit by or against a corporation the Secretary or any director or other Principal Officer of the corporation who is able to depose to the facts of the case might sign and verify on behalf of the company. Reading Order 6, Rule 14 together with Order 29, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure it would appear that even in the absence of any formal letter of authority or power of attorney having been executed a person referred to in Rule 1 of Order 29 can, by virtue of the office which he holds, sign and verify the pleadings on behalf of the corporation. In addition thereto and dehors Order 29, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as a company is a juristic entity it can duly authorize any person to sign the plaint or the written statement on its behalf and this would be regarded as sufficient compliance with the provisions of Order 6, Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure. A person may be expressly authorized to sign the pleadings on behalf of the company, for example, by the Board of Directors passing a resolution to that R.C.R.No.6,8,9,10,11 & 12 of 2014 18 effect or by a power of attorney being executed in favour of any individual. In absence thereof and in cases where pleadings have been signed by one of its officers a Corporation can ratify the said action of its officer in signing the preadings. Such ratification can be express or implied. The Court can on the basis of the evidence on record, and after taking all the circumstances of the case, specially with regard to the conduct of the trial, come to the conclusion that the corporation had ratified the act of signing of the pleading by its officer".
(emphasis supplied)
9. In the light of the aforesaid statement of law coupled with the fact that the tenants had not raised an objection to the maintainability of the rent control petitions for the reason that they are not signed by a duly authorized officer of the bank or that it is not one presented by an authorised officer of the bank, we are of the opinion that the rent control court erred in proceeding to consider the question whether the rent control petitions are maintainable for the reason that the person who has signed and presented it had not produced proof of authorization. Though it was contended before us that the landlord had a duty to plead that the person who has signed the petition is R.C.R.No.6,8,9,10,11 & 12 of 2014 19 competent to sign it and reliance was placed on the decision of a learned single Judge of this court in Krishanapillai's case (supra), we are of the opinion that the principle laid down in the said decision can have no application to the facts of the case. In Krishanapillai's case (supra) the suit was one for eviction after termination of the lease. It is settled law that to evict a lessee, the lease should be terminated. It was therefore necessary for the plaintiff to plead that the lease has been terminated by a notice to quit. It was in such circumstances that this court held that the failure of the defendants to plead in the written statement that the tenancy has not been terminated would not preclude them from raising a plea that the tenancy has not been terminated or that, there was no valid termination of the tenancy as required by law. In the instant case, it was not at all necessary for the landlord to state that the person signing the petition for eviction on behalf of the landlord has been duly authorized to institute the rent control petition on behalf of the landlord. All that was necessary was to state that he is a principal officer of the petitioner bank. If that averment had been disputed and denied, the landlord bank could have proved that fact by producing evidence to show that he has been duly authorized by a special or general resolution passed in that regard or by a power of attorney to institute the instant petition. We are R.C.R.No.6,8,9,10,11 & 12 of 2014 20 therefore in agreement with the rent control appellate authority that the rent control court erred in dismissing the petitions for eviction on the ground that they are not maintainable. We accordingly uphold the finding entered by the rent control appellate authority in that regard.
10. On the merits also we are of the opinion that the order of eviction passed under section 11(8) of the Act is not liable to be interfered with. It is not in dispute that the landlord bank has established and is running branches through out the State of Kerala and elsewhere. It has come out in evidence that in Thrissur town it is running two branches in two buildings situate within a distance of 50 meters. The Bazar branch with which we are concerned is situate on Municipal Office road. The landlord had in the petitions for eviction averred that with a view to cater to the needs of its customers, it wants to establish an ATM counter, a DD Shoppe and a gold loan counter. These facilities are to be provided in the Bazar branch and it is for providing these facilities to its customers that eviction of the ground floor of the building which has been let out to the petitioners was sought. Having regard to the nature of business carried on by the bank, it cannot be said that the decision taken by the bank to provide the aforesaid facilities to its customers would not be a bonafide decision but a malafide one. The tenants who are running businesses R.C.R.No.6,8,9,10,11 & 12 of 2014 21 in the premises owned by the bank and who even contend that this is the best place for them to make profit in their businesses cannot in our opinion, contend that the bank which is the owner of the building should not provide these facilities to its customers. It is not open to the tenants, to contend that the employees of the bank and its customers must be satisfied with the space available at their disposal and that the bank must provide all sorts of facilities to its customers, without evicting the tenants. The mere fact that the same landlord had in respect of the main branch obtained an order of eviction to provide similar facilities in that branch is not in our opinion a reason to hold that the need put forward in the instant case is not bonafide. Likewise, it is also not open to the tenants to contend that merely because an ATM counter, a DD Shoppe and a gold loan counter are available in the main branch or in the other branches of South Indian Bank, the Bazar branch should not provide those facilities. It is evident from the very fact that the branch is known as Bazar branch that it is situate in a commercially important locality. Even going by the version of the tenants, it is the best place for them to do their businesses. This shows that the locality where the petition schedule building is situate is a center of commercial activity. If in such circumstances, those in charge of the affairs of the bank decided that the bank should provide more R.C.R.No.6,8,9,10,11 & 12 of 2014 22 and better facilities to its customers, after evicting the tenants, no doubt by recourse to the due process of law, it cannot be said that the need put forward is not bonafide or that it is a mere pretext for eviction. Like the persons who have invested money in the ventures of the tenants, they themselves being partners, the shareholders of the bank are in our opinion, entitled to see that the bank runs its business in a profitable manner. The advantages with the landlord will secure by an order of eviction will certainly outweigh the disadvantage if any caused to the tenants in the instant case. It has come out in evidence that a large number of other commercial buildings are available in the locality. Thrissur is a fast developing town and it is not in dispute that a large number of commercial buildings have come up in the locality. The tenant in R.C.P.No.84 of 1990 is running a jewellery under the name and style Ayodya Jewellery, the tenant in R.C.P.No. 55 of 1996 is running a jewellery under the name and style Shalimar Jewellery and the tenant in R.C.P.No.163 of 1997 is running a jewellery under the name and style Chandy's Jewellery. It has come out in evidence that the partners of Chandy's Jewelery are running a business under the name and style Chandy's Lodge near the petition schedule premises. Apart from the rooms of the lodge which are let out on daily rent basis, rooms on the ground floor of that building have been let out R.C.R.No.6,8,9,10,11 & 12 of 2014 23 on monthly rent to the tenants. It has also come in evidence and it is conceded by RW2, who is the husband of the third respondent in R.C.P.No.84 of 1999, that Ayodya Jewllery has branches at Calicut and Dubai. This fact is also evidenced by Ext.A14 desk calender. It is thus evident that two of the tenants are running other businesses apart from the jewellery business which they are running in the petition schedule building. This coupled with the fact that other buildings are available in the locality would in our opinion disentitle the tenants from contending that they will be in a disadvantageous position and will have to close down their businesses, if they are evicted from the petition schedule building.
11. As stated earlier, the tenants cannot in our opinion contend that the petitioner bank which is answerable to its shareholders should notwithstanding the fact that there is no space available in the building owned by it, start new ventures or provide new facilities which it intends to provide to its customers, in other tenanted premises instead of the premises belonging to it. It is relevant in this context to note that RW1, one among the tenants is a shareholder of the petitioner bank. Though it is contended before us that space is available in the second floor of the building, it has come out in evidence that the said space was previously being used to store records and registers. As R.C.R.No.6,8,9,10,11 & 12 of 2014 24 years pass, the bank will certainly need more space to store them. Notwithstanding computerization, the bank will have to maintain books and registers. If the contention of the tenants is accepted, the bank will at no point of time be able to evict the tenants. Though its business may improve, it may find itself short of space for its employees and customers. That certainly is not the intendment of the Act. The Act was enacted to protect tenants from forcible eviction and rack-renting. It was not enacted to prevent landlords like the petitioner bank from expanding its business.
For the reasons stated above, we hold that there is no merit in these revision petitions. The revision petitions fail and are accordingly dismissed. However, having regard to the fact that the petitioners are running business in jewellery in the tenanted premises, we deem it appropriate to grant them time till 31.12.2016 to surrender vacant possession of the petition schedule buildings subject to the following conditions:
(a) The respondents in the respective rent control petitions shall file separate undertakings in the form of an affidavit in the Rent Control Court on or before 31.5.2016 undertaking to unconditionally surrender vacant possession of the petition schedule building to the petitioner bank on 31.12.2016.
R.C.R.No.6,8,9,10,11 & 12 of 2014 25
(b) They shall also deposit on the day the affidavits are filed, the arrears of rent if any payable in respect of the petition schedule building and undertake that they will continue to pay rent at the contract rate till the date of surrender.
(c ) They shall further undertake that they will not induct third parties or strangers into possession of the petition schedule building or commit acts of waste therein.
(d) In the event of default on the part of the tenants in complying with any one of the aforesaid stipulations, it will be open to the landlord to forthwith move the competent court for execution of the order of eviction. No costs.
Sd/-
P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE.
Sd/-
K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.
cl /true copy/ P.S to Judge