A.J. Varghese and others vs V. Mohanan

Pius C. Kuriakose, J.—The landlords are in appeal. They are aggrieved by the concurrent decisions taken by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority to decline the order of eviction which was sought on the ground of additional accommodation under sub Section 8 of Section 11. Going by the Rent Control Petition, the landlords are three brothers by name A.J. Varghese. A.J. Paul and A.J. John. According to them, they are in occupation of a substantial portion of a two storied building situated at Fort, Thiruvananthapu-ram. The respondent in RCR 375/10 corresponding to RCP 30/04 is conducting jewellery business under the name and style "Nivea Jewellery" in another portion of the same building. The respondent in RCR 377/10 corresponding to RCP 31/04 is conducting another jewellery under the name and style "Trichur Jewellers" in yet another part of the very same larger building. The common need projected by the petitioners in both these RCPs is to expand their ongoing business which is conducted under the name and style "Alukkas Jewellery". The bona fides of the need was disputed and the cases went for trial. The statutory authorities have under their orders noticed the evidence which is to the effect that Alukkas Jewellery is a partnership firm and it is the need of that partnership firm which is sought to be accomplished by seeking eviction. The statutory final fact finding authority, the Rent Control Appellate Authority has found under the impugned judgment that Alukkas Jewellery is a partnership firm and that it is that Jewellery which is conducting business in the larger portion of the double storied building. Nevertheless, eviction order was declined mainly on the reason that the Rent Control Petition lacks in pleadings to the effect that Alukkas Jewellery is a partnership firm and it is that firm which is in need of accommodation. Yet another reason stated by the Appellate Authority is that the petitioners in the Rent Control Petition (the signatories to the RCP) are not shown to be partners of the said business under any of the documents produced before the court.

In both these RCRs. the petitioners have produced certain documents which purport to show that the signatories to the Rent Control Petitions are partners of Alukkas Jewellery, registered partnership firm. The request of Sri. P.B. Krishnan, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners was that those documents be accepted by us in evidence and the issue be decided finally.

The above request is opposed by Advocate Sri. K. Ramachandran and Sri. T. Krishnanunni, senior counsel appearing for the respondents in these revisions. According to them, the jurisdictional limits of Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965 will not permit admitting documents at the revisional stage. They would also submit that admitting these documents at this stage will result in prejudice to the respondent. They would submit further that at any rate without proper foundation in pleadings these documents cannot form legal evidence in the case.

We do find merit in the submissions of Sri. Ramachandran and Sri. Krishnanunni. At the same time, we feel that considerations of justice demand that the petitioners be permitted to amend the pleadings and to adduce evidence for substantiating their present case that they are partners of the registered partnership firm under the name and style "Alukkas Jewellery" and that it is the need of the above registered partnership firm to have additional accommodation by evicting the respondents in these RCRs.

We notice yet another aspect of the matter. The building involved in RCR 377/10 has an extent of 800 sq. ft. and the respondent in that RCR is paying only Rs. 4840/- as rent. Similarly, the building involved in RCR 375/10 has an extent of 150 sq. ft. and the tenant in that case is paying only Rs. 825/- per mensem. According to us, considering the importance of the locality where the buildings are situated what is being paid by the respondents is very low. We are inclined to re-fix the rent payable by the respondent in RCR 375/10 with effect from 01/05/11 at Rs. 8,000/-per mensem. Similarly, we are inclined to re-fix the rent payable by the respondent in RCR 375/10 with effect from the same date at Rs. 1,500/- per mensem. We make it clear that this re-fixation is tentative and if either party is aggrieved it is open to them to move the Rent Control Court u/s 5 for regular fixation of fair rent. Till fair rent is fixed regularly, rent shall be paid by the respondents at the rates fixed by us.

The result of the above discussion therefore, is as follows:-

The order of the Rent Control Court and the Judgment of the Appellate Authority are set aside. The Rent Control Petitions are remanded to the Rent Control Court. The Rent Control Court is directed to permit the landlords to amend their pleadings. If pleadings are amended by the landlords, the Rent Control Court will permit the tenants to raise counter pleadings. The court will thereafter permit the landlords to adduce further evidence, oral and documentary. If landlords adduce further evidence, tenants also should be permitted to adduce counter evidence. Rent Control Court is directed to take a fresh decision on the liability of the tenants to be evicted, on the basis of the evidence already on record and further evidence which comes further to be on record. Rent payable by the respondents in RCR 377/10 is fixed with effect from 01/05/11 at Rs. 8,000/- per mensem and the rent payable by the respondents in RCR 375/10 is fixed with effect from 01/05/11 at Rs. 1,500/- per mensem. Transmit the records forthwith to the Rent Control Court. The parties will enter appearance on 25/05/11. That court is directed to comply with the above directions and pass revised order at the earliest and at any rate within four months of parties entering appearance. The learned Rent Control Court is also directed to consolidate both the RCPs and to try them jointly.