LexS.R. BABU versus T.K. VASUDEVAN AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
S.R. BABU
A
v.
T.K. VA SUD EV AN AND ORS.
SEPTEMBER 4, 200 I
[SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.]
B
Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965:
Ss. 11 (8) and 11(I0), first proviso-Landlord filing eviction petition on
grounds of bona fide requirement for personal occupation u!s. 11 (3)-Bona C
fide requirement for personal occupation after reconstruction u!s. I I (8); and
for reconstruction after demolition of portion for more beneficial use u!s.
I 1 (4) (iv)-Rent Controller ordering eviction u!s. I 1 (3) and rejecting other
grounds-Appeal of tenant dismissed by appellate authority but allowed in
revision by District Judge-High Court setting aside order of District Judge D
and restoring that of Rent Controller-Held, case falls under sub-section (8)
and not under sub-section (3) of s. 11 as landlord in occupation of a part of
building and tenant occupying another part thereof-Once it is held that
landlord requires additional accommodation for his personal use, he is entitled
to utilise it as it exists or after necessary repairs, additions or alterations to
best suit his requirement-Finding recorded by original authority as affirmed E
by appellate authority and High Court is that landlord bona fide needs the
premises for his personal use, a fortiori he requires additional accommodation
for his personal use-However, while making an order u!s. 11 (8), a finding
under first proviso to s.ub-section (I 0) of s.11 is also to be recorded; and as
this has not been done, matter is remitted to Rent Controller to consider F
whether the requirement of said proviso is satisfied, if so, to record a finding
thereunder.
Ss. I I (3) and (BJ-Distinction between-,-Explained.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6304 of G
2001.
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.5.98 of the Kerala High Court
in O.P. No. 2249 of 1994-P.
M.P. Vinod for the Appellant.
553
H
554
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2001) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
A
T.L.V. Iyer, Subramonium Prasad, Ms. Astha Tyagi and S.N. Jha for
B
the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered:
Leave is granted.
The appeal is directed against the order of the High Court of Kerala at
Ernakulam in O.P.No. 2249 of 1994 dated May 20, 1998.
The appellant is the tenant of respondent No. I in respect of premises,
Ward No. 28, Changanacherry (hereinafter referred to as 'the suit premises').
C The first respondent filed eviction petition (R.C.P. No. I I of 1983) against the
appellant in the court of the Rent Controller, Kottayam, on three grounds: (i)
bona-fide requirement for personal occupation-under Section 11(3) of the
Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control}, 1965 (Act 2 of 1965) (for short
'the Act'); (ii} bona-fide requirement for personal occupation after
D reconstruction-under Section 11(8) of the Act; and (iii) under Section I 1{4)(iv)
of the Act stating that he intends to demolish and reconstruct the portion for
his more beneficial use. The appellant denied bona fide requirement of the
first respondent and contested the eviction petition on all the three counts.
The learned Rent Controller rejected the claim of the respondent under
E sub-section (8) of Section 11 as also under clause (iv) of sub-section (4) of
Section 11 of the Act. However, he ordered eviction under sub-section (3) of
Section 11 holding that bona fide requirement of the first respondent was
proved. The findings of the learned Rent Controller were upheld by the
Appellate Authority in the appeal, filed by the appellant herein, and the
appeal was dismissed on June 23, 1987. The appellant carried the matter in
F revision before the Additional District Court, Kottayam. The learned Additional
District Judge on re-appreciating the evidence held that the bona fide
requirement of the first respondent was not proved and reversed the order of
the Appellate Authority, on that ground, by allowing the revision on October
18, 1993. The first respondent chalienged the said order of the learned
G Additional District Judge by an application under Article 227 of the
Constitution, O.P. No. 2249 of 1994, before the High Court of Kerala at
Ernakulam. The High Court set aside the order of the learned Additional
District Judge in RCRP No. 16/87 and restored the order of the Appellate
Authority in RCA Nos. 16 and 17 of 1985 confirming the order of the Rent
Controller in RCP 11/83 dated January 30, 1985. The O.P. was thus allowed
H on May 20, 1998. IExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.