Vackachan vs Kurian

K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.—This revision petition was filed by the legal heirs of the deceased tenant. Original tenant died in the year 1998 when R.C.P. was pending. Eviction was sought for u/s 11(3) and 11(4)(iii) of the Kerla Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 2 of 1965. Eviction was ordered u/s 11(4)(iii) of the Act, but u/s 11(3) was declined. Matter was taken up before the Appellate Authority. Appellate Authority passed the following order:

(a) This appeal is allowed subject to conditions.

(b) I hold that on the basis of the materials presently available the impugned direction u/s 11(4)(iii) does not cal for interference.

(c) But I hold that the appellant can be granted the luxury of a further opportunity to take out a commission and adduce evidence as to whether Ext. A1/A2 building is reasonably sufficient to meet his requirements on condition that the appellant deposits an amount of Rs. 12,500/- (Rupees Twelve thousand five hundred only) as cost payable to the landlord on or before 28.7.2001.

Aggrieved by those directions tenants have approached this Court. We are only concerned with the question whether the concurrent findings of the Courts below u/s 11(4)(iii) is to be interfered with in this revisional jurisdiction and whether the conditions imposed by the Appellate Authority in ordering remand is justified. Landlord contended that the tenants are in possession and ownership of a building reasonably sufficient for their requirement. In order to establish the same they placed reliance on Exts. A1 and A2. A1 is the copy of the property tax assessment register for the period 1.4.90 to 31.5.95 in respect of building No. XIII/281 in Tripunithura Municipality. A2 is the copy of property tax assessment register for the period 1.4.95 to 31.3.2000 in respect of building No. XIII/348 in Tripunithrua Municipality. We find with regard to the property covered by A1 and A2 the tenants contentions is that both the buildings are in a dilapidated condition and that there is no read access and therefore not suitable for conducting bakery business. We are of the view when the landlord has established that tenant is in possession of other buildings the burden is heavy on the tenant to show that those buildings are not reasonably sufficient for the requirement of the tenant. Tenants has not discharged the burden. No commission was taken out. Apart form the oral testimony there is no evidence to show that those buildings are not sufficient for their requirement. Under such circumstances we are of the view the Court below is justified in allowing eviction u/s 11(4)(iii) of Act 2 of 1965.

Counsel appearing for the tenant however submitted he may be given a chance to adduce further evidence. He is seriously attacking the condition imposed by the Appellate Authority for a remand. The condition stipulated for remand was that the tenant would deposit an amount of Rs. 12,500/- on or before 28.7.2001. Tenant submitted this condition is cumbersome and impossible of compliance. CMP 4234/01 was also filed by the tenant to receive certain documents. In the affidavit in support of the petition it was stated with much difficulty he could raise only Rs. 8,846/-. Therefore he sought for a remand on payment of Rs. 8,846/-. We are satisfied on the basis of the materials available that there are sufficient grounds for eviction u/s 11(4)(iii) and consequently remand is unnecessary. All the same we may hasten to add when a condition is imposed for a remand, that condition must be reasonable, just and workable. Rent of the building admittedly is only Rs. 25/-. Therefore one year rent would come only upto Rs. 300/. If the tenant has to remit an amount of Rs. 12,500/- for a remand by way of cost that would mean that he will have to deposit 42 years rent. We therefore have no hesitation to say that the conditional order passed by the Appellate Authority is unjustified, irrational and illegal. We have hasten to add when a condition is imposed for a remand that condition must be capable of compliance, must be reasonable, just and proper and must be justice oriented and shall not amount to a punishment. When the Court finds there is no merits in the case, court should decline relief and no expected to impose cumbersome and unworkable conditions. Since on facts we found no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings on 11(4)(iii) we are inclined to dismiss the C.R.P.