C.P. Stanly vs P.K. Rama Iyer

K.T. Sankaran, J.—The petitioner filed R.C.P.No.138 of 2007 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Ernakulam against P.K.Rama Iyer, the predecessor in interest of respondents 2 to 4. The Rent Control Petition was filed under Section 5 for fixation of fair rent and on the ground of bona fide need under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''). Subsequently, the landlord did not press the claim under Section 5 of the Act. The Rent Control Court, by the order dated 30.7.2009, allowed the Rent Control Petition under Section 11(3) of the Act. Challenging the order of the Rent Control Court, the tenant filed R.C.A.No.49 of 2009 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Ernakulam. The Appellate Authority, as per the judgment dated 30.9.2011, allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Rent Control Court. The landlord has now come up in Revision challenging the judgment of the Appellate Authority.

The reason why the Appellate Authority rejected the claim under Section 11(3) is that there is no proper pleading on the part of the landlord with respect to the claim under Section 11(3) of the Act. The Appellate Authority held that the need advanced is not specific and that it is vague. In the Rent Control Petition, the need put forward by the landlord is contained in paragraphs 2 and 4, the relevant portions of which are extracted below:

"2..... The petitioner needs the said building for his own use and for his sons. The petitioner''s elder son Red Stanley is B.Com PGCDA and his younger son Pink Stanley is a computer specialist. Both of the petitioner''s sons are at marriageable age. Hence the petitioner and his sons need the petition schedule building for their own use and occupation.

xxxx xxxx

The petitioner and his sons bonafide needs the building for their own use and occupation....."

The building was originally let out to P.K.Rama Iyer. The building is a storeyed house. The petition schedule building is the upstair portion of the main building. Rama Iyer was residing with his family there and he was also conducting a typewriting institute. Though the landlord stated in the reply notice that the typewriting institute was not being run in the petition schedule building, he admitted in evidence that such an institute was being run, but for the last several years it is closed. Rama Iyer is no more. His children are otherwise employed. The rent was fixed several years ago and it is on the lower side. The building is situated in an important locality in Ernakulam city. The landlord has two sons. At the time of filing the Rent Control Petition, they were unmarried. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that marriage of both the children of the landlord were solemnized as of now. On a fair reading of the Rent Control Petition, the affidavit in lieu of chief examination of the landlord and his cross examination, it is seen that the landlord has not opened his mind as to what exactly is the bona fide need. There is no averment in the Rent Control Petition or any statement in the evidence of the landlord that his children are depending on him for the purpose of the building.

If a strict technical view is taken, the Rent Control Petition could be dismissed on the technical plea raised by the tenant, as was done by the Appellate Authority. But in the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not think, it would be just to dismiss the Rent Control Petition only on the ground of vagueness in the pleadings. As stated earlier, the fact that the building is a residential one, that it is situated in an important locality, that the rent is meagre, that the original tenant died, that the typewriting institute is not being run now and that the children of the tenant are otherwise employed are all matters which are relevant for a proper adjudication of the case. We feel that vagueness in the pleadings alone should not stand in the way of a just and meaningful adjudication of the case, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.

For the aforesaid reasons, we set aside the judgment of the Appellate Authority and remand the case to the Appellate Authority with liberty to the landlord to amend the Rent Control Petition and to adduce further evidence. The tenant would be entitled either to amend his counter or to file an additional counter statement consequent to the amendment of the Rent Control Petition. The tenant also would be entitled to adduce further evidence. The Rent Control Appellate Authority shall consider and dispose of the appeal afresh, taking into account the evidence already on record, the amendment to the pleadings and the additional evidence, if any. Since the Rent Control Petition is very old, the Appellate Authority shall make every endeavour to dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible. The petitioner/landlord shall take necessary steps to amend the Rent Control Petition within two weeks from the date fixed for appearance before the Appellate Authority. The tenant shall file either an application for amendment of the counter statement or an additional counter statement, as the case may be, within two weeks from the date of allowing the application for amendment of the Rent Control Petition. It is assured by the counsel appearing on either side that the parties will not unnecessarily seek for adjournment.

The Rent Control Revision is disposed of as above by way of remand.

The parties shall appear before the Rent Control Appellate Authority on 12th August, 2014.