```
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFKERALAATERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THEHONOURABLEMR.JUSTICEP.B.SURESHKUMAR
&
```
```
THEHONOURABLEMRS.JUSTICESOPHYTHOMAS
TUESDAY,THE4[TH]DAYOFAPRIL2023/14THCHAITHRA,1945
```
## **`RCREV. NO. 76 OF 2023`**
```
AGAINSTTHEJUDGMENTDATED31.10.2022INRCANO.18OF2020OF
DISTRICTCOURT&SESSIONSCOURT,ERNAKULAMCONCURRINGWITHTHE
COMMONORDERINRCPNO.20OF2018DATED16.11.2019OFTHE
MUNSIFFANDRENTCONTROLCOURT,KOCHI
```
## **`PETITIONER/APPELLANT/REVISION PETITIONER:`**
```
GEETHA,AGED47YEARS,
D/O.LATEPRABHAKARAN,CC19/208(NEWNO.21/351),P.D.
ROAD,PALLURUTHY,KOCHI-,PIN–682006.
```
```
BYADVS.
G.KRISHNAKUMAR
B.S.SURAJKRISHNA
AGNETJARARD
VINAYJOHN.A.J
```
## **`RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:`**
```
A.K.BALAMURALI,AGED58YEARS,
S/O.LATEKOCHAPPANNAIR,ATTUAVALLILSARALANIVAS,
PALLURUTHY,KOCHI,PIN–682006.
```
```
THISRENTCONTROLREVISIONHAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSIONON
04.04.2023,ALONGWITHRCREV.NO.78OF2023,THECOURTONTHE
SAMEDAYDELIVEREDTHEFOLLOWING:
```
RCRev Nos. 76 & 78 of 2023 2
```
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFKERALAATERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THEHONOURABLEMR.JUSTICEP.B.SURESHKUMAR
```
```
&
THEHONOURABLEMRS.JUSTICESOPHYTHOMAS
TUESDAY,THE4[TH]DAYOFAPRIL2023/14THCHAITHRA,1945
```
## **`RCREV. NO. 78 OF 2023`**
```
AGAINSTTHEJUDGMENTDATED31.10.2022INRCANO.17OF2020OF
DISTRICTCOURT&SESSIONSCOURT,ERNAKULAMCONCURRINGWITHTHECOMMON
ORDERDATED16.11.2019INRCPNO.19OF2018OFTHEMUNSIFFANDRENT
CONTROLCOURT,KOCHI
```
## **`PETITIONER/APPELLANT/REVISION PETITIONER:`**
```
SAJI,AGED55YEARS,
S/O.LATESADANANDAN,CC19/207(NEWNO.21/352),
PDROAD,PALLURUTHY,KOCHI,PIN–682006.
```
```
BYADVS.
G.KRISHNAKUMAR
B.S.SURAJKRISHNA
AGNETJARARD
VINAYJOHN.A.J
```
## **`RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PETITIONERS:`**
```
A.K.BALAMURALI,AGED58YEARS,
S/O.LATEKOCHAPPANNAIR,ATTUVALLILSARALANIVAS,
PALLURUTHY,KOCHI,PIN–682006.
```
```
THISRENTCONTROLREVISIONHAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSIONON
04.04.2023,ALONGWITHRCREV.NO.76OF2023,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAY
DELIVEREDTHEFOLLOWING:
```
RCRev Nos. 76 & 78 of 2023
3
## **P.B.SURESH KUMAR & SOPHY THOMAS, JJ.**
**------------------------------------------RCRev Nos. 76 & 78 of 2023 -------------------------------------------** Dated this the 4[th] day of April, 2023
## **O R D E R**
## **Sophy Thomas, J.**
The tenants in RCP No.19 of 2018 and RCP No.20 of 2018, on the file of the Rent Control Court, Kochi, are the petitioners herein, challenging the concurrent findings of the Rent Control Court as well as the Appellate Authority under Section 11(4)(iv) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
2. The rooms, which are the subject matter of RCP Nos.19 of 2018 and 20 of 2018, originally belonged to the mother of the petitioner/landlord, and it was part of an ‘L’ shaped building consisting of six rooms. The tenant in RCP No.19 of 2018 was occupying room No.19/207, and the tenant in RCP No.20 of 2018 was occupying the room No.19/208. The landlord filed Rent Control Petitions for evicting the tenants under Section 11(4)(iv) of the Act, on the ground that, the building was in a dilapidated condition and so he wanted to reconstruct
RCRev Nos. 76 & 78 of 2023
4
the building by replacing its tiled roof with a concrete roof. The mother of the landlord had obtained building permit to reconstruct that building and that was valid even at the time of filing the Rent Control Petitions. The landlord was having financial capacity to reconstruct the building. According to him, shop rooms bearing No.19/205 and 19/206 were already vacated by the respective tenants. Moreover, he had already reconstructed the building on getting vacant possession of room Nos.19/203 and 19/204.
3. The tenants opposed the Rent Control Petitions contending that the building was not in a dilapidated condition as alleged by the landlord and it needs only some minor repairs. The landlord has not obtained valid permit and plan to reconstruct the building. The financial stability of the landlord was also under challenge. According to them, the need projected as reconstruction of the building was only a ruse to evict them.
4. RCP Nos.19 of 2018 and 20 of 2018 were jointly tried by the Rent Control Court. PWs1 to 4 were examined and Exts. A1 to A9 were marked from the side of the landlord. RWs1 and 2 were examined and Exts.B1 and B2 were marked from the side of the tenants. Ext.C1 was marked as Court Exhibit.
5. On analysing the facts and evidence, the Rent Control
RCRev Nos. 76 & 78 of 2023
5
Court found that the petition schedule rooms, which were part of an ‘L’
shaped room owned by the landlord, were in a dilapidated condition and it needed reconstruction. The building plan and permit was found extended till 10.06.2019. Ext.A6 sufficiently proved that PW1 was having sufficient means to reconstruct the building. The evidence adduced by the tenants to the effect that the building was not in need of reconstruction was found against them. So the Rent Control Court ordered eviction under Section 11(4)(iv) of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of eviction, the tenants preferred separate appeals before the Rent Control Appellate Authority as RCA No.17 of 2020 and RCA No.18 of 2020. The Rent Control Appellate Authority considered those appeals together, and as per common judgment dated 31.10.2022, dismissed the appeals. Now, the tenants are before us in this revision, challenging the common judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority.
6. We are called upon to find out whether there is any illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the impugned common judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority warranting interference of this Court under Section 20 of the Act.
7. The landlord-tenant relationship between the revision petitioners and the respondent is not in dispute. It is admitted that the
RCRev Nos. 76 & 78 of 2023
6
schedule rooms occupied by the revision petitioners are part of an ‘L’ shaped building consisting of six rooms.
8. The case of the landlord is that the schedule rooms need reconstruction as it is in a dilapidated condition. Ext.C1 Commission Report proved through PW3 shows that the roof of that building was covered with a plastic sheet as it was in a damaged condition. The building plan and permit obtained by the landlord was extended, and the financial capacity of the landlord to reconstruct the building also stand proved. Moreover, using the rooms, which he got vacant possession from other tenants, he has reconstructed the building. The revision petitioners/tenants have got a case that the reconstruction made by the landlord, is an unauthorised one and so it cannot be taken into consideration. The tenants have nothing to do with the construction if any carried out by the landlord unauthorisedly in the adjacent rooms, and it is for the authorities concerned to look into those aspects.
9. In a petition for eviction under Section 11(4)(iv) of the
Act, the landlord has to prove the following requirements:
- (i) The building must be in such condition that it needs to be
- reconstructed.
- (ii) The landlord must prove that he requires _bona fide_ to reconstruct
RCRev Nos. 76 & 78 of 2023
7
the building.
(iii) He must satisfy the Court that he has the necessary plan and licence, if any, required.
- (iv) He must have the ability to rebuild.
(v) He must satisfy the Court that the proposal is not made as a pretext for eviction. ( **Kochuvavakunju v. Katheru Kunju and Others** [ILR 1991 (3) Ker. 352]).
10. Ext.C1 Commission Report coupled with the oral testimony of PW3-the Commissioner is sufficient to show that the building was in such a condition that it needs to be reconstructed. The building plan and permit coupled with the testimony of PW4-Engineer was sufficient to prove that the landlord required that building _bona fide_ for reconstruction. Moreover, the fact that the landlord reconstructed the building, which he obtained vacant possession from other tenants, also is sufficient to prove his _bona fides_ for reconstruction. Exts.A2 and A9, the building permit with sketch and the estimate will show that he has got necessary plan and licence to reconstruct the building. Ext.A6-the Bank Pass Book of the landlord shows the means of the landlord to reconstruct the building. From all these facts, the Rent Control Court as well as the Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the proposal for reconstruction was not
RCRev Nos. 76 & 78 of 2023
8
made as a pretext for eviction. The fact that earlier RCP filed by the predecessor of the landlord was dismissed will not and cannot affect the subsequent RCP filed by the landlord. So Exts.B1 and B2, produced by the tenants to show that earlier RCP filed by the predecessor in interest of the landlord was dismissed, is of no consequence.
11. On going through the entire facts and evidence, we could not find out any illegality or impropriety in the impugned common judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, confirming the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court under Section 11(4)(iv) of the Act.
12. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners requested six months time to surrender vacant possession of the schedule rooms to the landlord. Considering the facts and circumstances, we are inclined to grant six months’s time for the revision petitioners to vacate the premises, but on condition that they shall file an affidavit before the Rent Control Court on or before 22.05.2023, unconditionally undertaking to vacate the tenanted premises within six months, and agreeing to pay the arrears of rent, if any, within one month and continue to pay the monthly rent before the due dates, till they vacate the premises. In case of default of any of
RCRev Nos. 76 & 78 of 2023
9
these conditions, the landlord can initiate execution proceedings.
With these directions, the above Rent Control Revisions
stand dismissed.
Sd/- **P.B.SURESH KUMAR JUDGE**
Sd/- **SOPHY THOMAS JUDGE**
DSV/10.04.2023
