LexAKKANISSERY GOVINDAN NAMBIAR versus KARIYATH RAGHAVAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
AKKANISSERY GOVINDAN NAMBIAR A v. KARIYATH RAGHAVAN AUGUST 19, 1998 [DR. AS. ANAND AND V.N. KHARE, JJ.] B Rent and Evictio11 : Kera/a Buildings (Lease a11d Rellf Control) Act, 1965: S. 11(3) proviso-No11-residellfial premise~viction of te11a11t on grou11d of bo11afide requireme11t to set up groce1y trade for so11 of la11dlord-Pe11di11g proceedi11gs a11other room vacated nearby by a11other te11a11t-Te11a11t pleadi11g that due to the premises so vacated the gro1111d of bonafide requireme11t no 1011ger available-Appellate autho1ity allowing ap- plication of la11dlord holding that the room vacated was not suitable for D groce1y trade and could not said to be an altemative accommodation-High Cowt rejecti11g /a11dlord's application holding that landlord could meet the requireme11t after reco11st111ction/renovatio11 of the room vacated dwi11g the proceedi11gs--Held, requirement of law is that the building which has been vacated should be of such a character which would meet the requirements without reconstmctio11/re11ovatio11-T71e ve1y fact that the premises which fell vacant dU1i11g the pendency of proceedings have bee11 f ou11d by final fact fi11di11g authority to be such as not to be suitable for proposed busi11ess would E be a special reason within the meani11g of the proviso-Order of High Colllt set aside a11d that of appellate autl101ity restored. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 9862 of 1996. From the Judgment and Order dated 8.3.95 of the Kerala High Court F in C.R.P. No. 2517 of 1994. G Vipin Nair and K.M.K. Nair for the Appellant. Romy Chacko and Ramesh Babu M.R. for the Respondent. I The following Order of the Court was delivered : H 49 50 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1998] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. A Appellant is the landlord. Respondent is the tenant. Appellant sought eviction of the tenant on the ground that the premises were required for the bonafide need of the son of the landlord to start his business in those premises. Initially the petition of the landlord was dismissed and even the appellate authority concurred with the Rent Controller. The main B reason for arriving at the concurrent findings was that the landlord had not stated in his petition the exact nature of the business which was required to be carried out by his son in the premises in dispute. The High Court on a revision filed by the landlord, remanded the case to the appellate authority for deciding the appeal afresh, keeping in view the bona fide need of the landlord as pleaded by him. c The appellate authority, after remand, found that the landlord's need to accommodate his son, Jayarajan, for the bona fide need for starting grocery business was established. However, while the matter was pending before the appellate authority, after remand, it appears, that the landlord got vacant possession of another premises situate adjacent to the petition D schedule building belonging to him. On this ground, the tenant advanced a plea based on the proviso to Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965 before the appellate authority and urged that since another premises was available to the landlord, his genuine need could be met by use of those premises and the ground of bona fide need, E to have the tenant evicted, was no longer available to him. The appellate authority with a view to determine the effect of subsequent development appointed a Commissioner to conduct spot inspection of both the premises to find out if the building which had been vacated during the pendency of the proceedings before the appellate authority, was or was not suitable for F the proposed business of the son of the landlord Jayarajan. The Local Commissioner submitted his report to which both sides filed objections. The appellate authority after taking into acc.ount the counter filed by the landlord and the report of the Local Commissioner arrived at the con- clusion. G ''from the above it looks that the building they got vacated is not constmcted as one fit for doing groce1y trade". The appellate authority also opined - "hence the room got vacated cannot be an altemative to the rooms H in the possession of the te11a11t. The building got vacated cannot be . ' -- t \~- .. A.G. NAMBIAR v. K.RAGHAVAN 51 said to be suitable for the proposed business." The tenant took the matter to the High Court through a revision petition. The learned Division Bench of the Kerala High Cour
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.