LexVALIYAVALAPPIL SAROJAKSHAN & ORS. versus SUMALSANKAR GAIKEVADA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2017] 2 S.C.R. 943
VALIYAVALAPPIL SAROJAKSHAN & ORS.
v.
SUMALSANKAR GAIKEVADA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 6819-6820 of2009)
MARCH 29, 2017
[KURIAN JOSEPH AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.;
Kera/a Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 -
s.11(4J(iii) and (iv) - Eviction sought uls.11(4)(iii) and s.11(4)(iv) -
Rent control court allowed the petition uls.11 (4){iv) only -Appellant-
landlords filed appeals before the First Appellate Authority for
seeking eviction u!s.11 (4)(iii) also - Pending these appeals, however,
the appellant-landlords took delivery of premises in execution
proceedings - Appeals were ultimately allowed - Respondents-
tenants filed revision b~fore the High Court - High Court held that
once the delivery of the premises had already been taken in
execution, no further proceedings for eviction could be pursued on
any other ground - On appeal, held: The eviction on the respective
grounds under the Act has different ramifications since the grounds
are distinct and separate - Therefore, merely because the landlords
had taken possession on the basis of an eviction order on one ground
that does not mean that the surviving grounds became non-est -
High Court did not consider the revision petitions filed by the
respondents-tenants on merits on account of the view taken by the
High Court - Matter remitted to High Court for fresh consideration.
Allowing the appeals and remitting the matter to High Court,
the Court
HELD: The moot question is whether the landlords are
entitled to eviction on all the grounds taken by the landlords in
A
B
c
D
E
F
the petitions for eviction. The eviction on the respective grounds
G
under the Act has different ramifications since the grounds being
distinct and separate. For all practical purposes ai;d legal
consequences, the said grounds do survive to be considered
under law. (Para 11] (946-C-D]
H
943
944
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2017] 2 S.C.R.
A
CIVIL APPELLATE.JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 6819-
B
6820 of2009.
From the Judgment and Order dated 03 .07 .2007 of the High Court
ofKerala at Emakulam in C.R. P. Nos: 1274 & 1377 of2000.
R. Basant, Sr. Adv., T. G Narayanan Nair, K. N. Madhusoodhanan,
Ad vs. for the Appellants.
Ranjith K. C., Bijo Mathew Joy, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
KURIAN, J. I. Jn the present appeals, we are called upon to
C · consider the interplay between Section 11{ 4)(iii) and Section 11 ( 4 )(iv) of
the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (in short, "the
Act").
D
E
F
G
H
2. The provisions to the extent relevant read as follows:-
"(iii) If the tena11t already has i11 his possessio11 a buildi11g or
subseque/1/ly acquires possessio11 of or puts up a buiiding,
reaso11ably sujjicie11t for his requirements in the same city,
town or village; or
(iv) If the building is in such a condition that it needs
reconstruction and if the landlord requires bona fide to
reconstruct the same and if he satisfies the court that he has
the plan a11d licence, if any required, and the ability to build
and if ·the proposal is not made as a pretext for eviction;
Provided that the landlord who evicts a tenant and does 1101
reconstruct completely the building withili a time "hich may
be fixed or extended by the Rent Co11trol Court, shall 011 a
petition before that Court be liable to a fi11e of rupees five
hundred, if its proved that he has wiljuf/y neglected to
reconstruct completely the bui/di11g withi11 such time; provided
further that the court shall have power at a11y time to issue
J directions regarding the reconstruction of the buildi11g and
011 failure of compliance by the /a11dlord, to give effect to the
order in a11y manner the Court deems fit and in appropriate
cases to put the tenant back i11 possessio11 or award the evicted
tenant damages equal tot he excess rent he has to pay for
another building that he is occupying in consequence of such
VALIYAVALAPPIL SAROJAKSHAN & ORS. v.
945
SUMALSANKAR GAIKEVADA & ORS. [KURIAN, J.]
eviction; provided further that the tenant who was evicted
shall have the first option to have the reconstructed building
allotted to him with liability to pay its fair rent. "
3. The appellants filed Rent C().ntrol Petition Nos. 82of1994 and
83 of 1994 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Vatakara, seeking
eviction of the respondents-tenants, mainly under Sections 11 (4) (iii) and
11(4)(iv).
4. The Rent Control Court allowExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.