Unnikurup and Pankajakshi vs Sreemathi

A.V. Ramakrishna Pillai

The tenants are in revision. The respondent landlady sought eviction of the revision petitioners from the petition schedule room under Sections 11(2)(b), 11(3), 11(4)(iii) and 11(8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act hereinafter referred to as the ''Act''. The case of the respondent landlady was that the petition schedule room which is a partition of her residence was let out to the revision petitioners on a monthly rent of Rs. 250/- and that the rent was in arrears since July, 2002. In spite of statutory notice the revision petitioner failed to pay the rent. It was also urged that the revision petitioners constructed a house of their own and they have no necessity to continue in the petition schedule room. The further case of the landlady was that she wanted the entire building for a comfortable stay with her family as she found it inconvenient and uncomfortable when the revision petitioners continue in the petition schedule room.

The revision petitioners countered resisting the prayer for eviction. They took the contention that they have not kept the rent in arrears and that the rate of rent was only Rs. 150/- per month. The allegation that they are having a building of their own was also denied. The further case advanced by the revision petitioner was that the respondent landlady had adopted a son, but later she had abandoned him and at present she is alone in the house. According to the revision petitioners, the respondent landlady can have a comfortable stay in the portion of the building which is now occupied by her.

The Rent Control Court raised proper points for trial and permitted both sides to adduce evidence. When the matter came up for trial the prayer for eviction u/s 11(3) was not pressed by the respondent landlady. After consideration of the evidence on record, the learned Rent Controller ordered eviction u/s 11(2)(b), 11 (4)(iii) and 11(8) of the Act.

The revision petitioners took the matter in appeal. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority after a re- appraisal of the evidence confirmed the order of eviction u/s 11(2)(b) and 11(8). However, the order of eviction u/s 11(4)(iii) was vacated. The order of eviction u/s 11(2)(b) and 11(8) are under challenge.

We have heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioneRs.

The eviction order u/s 11(2)(b) was not seriously challenged by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners at the time of hearing. We confirm the order of eviction passed u/s 11(2)(b) as it is subject to the statutory right of the revision petitioners u/s 11(2) (c).

Coming to the order of eviction u/s 11(8), the learned counsel for the revision petitioners would argue that the need projected by the respondent landlady is not honest and it is only a mere ruse for eviction of the revision petitioneRs. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioners, the respondent landlady had an adopted son and the landlady has proceeded for eviction in the special circumstances where the adopted son had to be accommodated in the building. It was further argued that within few years the respondent landlady abandoned the adopted son and now the landlady does not require the petition schedule premises for her additional accommodation.

The courts below were not prepared to accept this argument on the ground that the additional accommodation sought by the landlady is not simply to accommodate her adopted son. It was found that the tenanted premises in this case is only a portion of the single building belonging to the landlady where she also resides and she was definite in her evidence that she wanted the entire building for her own comfortable stay peacefully without being disturbed or intruded by anybody.

It was also found by the courts below that this is not a case where the tenanted premises is being used for any commercial or business purposes. Admittedly the building is a residential building and the respondent/landlady is occupying a portion of the building. Both the courts below found that the landlady wants a happy and comfortable stay in her house without anybody to intrude into her privacy or to cause any disturbance to her. We are not prepared to reverse the finding of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority as the scope of interference by us u/s 20 of the Act is very limited.

It is also in evidence that the revision petitioners are having property of their own where they can put up their own residential accommodation. Both the courts below has also considered the comparative hardship while ordering eviction u/s 11(8). On a consideration of the materials placed before us, we are of the definite view that there is no illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the impugned order which calls for any interference by us u/s 20 of the Act.

In the result, the revision fails and accordingly the same shall stand dismissed.

When our decision was made known to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, he requested that as the parties are close relatives the possibilities of a settlement of the issue between the parties should be explored by us. Further he requested that at any rate the petitioner should be granted at least one year time to surrender the vacant possession of the petition schedule premises.

We are of the view that we will not be justified in granting time without hearing the respondent/landlady. Hence, issue notice to the landlady for deciding the question of time that can be granted to the revision petitioner and also for exploring the possibilities of an amicable settlement between the parties. Interim stay for two months.