Kannachankandy Chandran & Ors vs Peetikakandy Achuthan & Ors

KANNACHANKANDY CHANDRAN & ORS. Appellant(s)

VERSUS

PEETIKAKANDY ACHUTHAN & ORS. Respondent(s)

O R D E R

Leave granted.

This appeal has been preferred against the

judgment and order dated 10.08.2006 passed by the

High Court of Kerala in C.R.P. No.546 of 2002 and

order dated 25.09.2006 in R.P. No.740 of 2006,

whereby the High Court has set aside the order of

eviction passed by the Rent Control Appellate

Authority, Kozhikode and allowed the revision

petition filed by the respondents.

The facts which are necessary for the disposal

of this appeal are briefly recapitulated hereunder:

The appellants herein are the landlords of the

2

building premises which is situated in Kozhikode

District, Kerala. The said building was given on

rent by the father of the appellants, namely,

Kannachankandy Kannad (since deceased) to one

Peetikakandy Achuthan (respondent No.1 herein) in

the year 1986 at a monthly rent of Rs.175/-. The

rent was subsequently enhanced to Rs.210/- per

month. The rent was paid upto October, 1993 but the

rent accrued thereafter remained unpaid by

respondent No.1 thereby committing default in

payment of arrears of rent.

A petition for eviction of the tenant from the

building premises was filed under Section 11(2)(b),

11(3), 11(4)(i), 11(4)(ii) and 11(4)(iii) of the

Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965

(for short, 'the Act'), before the Rent Controller

on the ground of arrears of rent, bona fide need,

subletting and material alteration. The Rent

Controller allowed the said petition in part and

ordered eviction under Section 11(2)(b) on the

ground of arrears of rent but dismissed the petition

on all other grounds.

3

On appeal by the landlord against the

dismissal of the petition on the other grounds, the

Rent Control Appellate Authority affirmed the

finding of the Rent Controller under Section

11(2)(b) of the Act and remanded the matter to the

Rent Controller for fresh decision on other grounds.

After the remand, the Rent Controller found

all the grounds against the landlord, including the

one under Section 11(2)(b) of the Act and dismissed

the eviction petition vide order dated 3.11.1999.

Against the said order passed by the Rent

Controller, the landlord preferred an appeal before

the Rent Control Appellate Authority. The Rent

Control Appellate Authority allowed the appeal of

the landlord reversing the findings of the Rent

Controller under Sections 11(2)(b), 11(4)(i) and

11(4)(iii) of the Act and eviction was ordered.

Aggrieved by the order of the eviction passed

by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, the

respondents preferred a civil revision petition

before the Kerala High Court. The High Court while

4

reversing the findings of the Rent Control Appellate

Authority under Sections 11(2)(b), 11(4)(i) &

11(4)(iii) of the Act, set aside the order of

eviction and allowed the revision petition. The

landlord filed a review petition before the High

Court contending that after the remand, eviction

under Section 11(2)(b) was not pursued before the

Rent Control Court as the same had been affirmed by

the Rent Control Appellate Authority and remand was

ordered only on the grounds other than the one under

Section 11(2)(b), and therefore, the Rent Controller

should not have considered the claim for eviction

under Section 11(2)(b) afresh. The High Court

restored the order of eviction only under Section

11(2)(b) and disposed of the review petition.

Hence, the landlords are before us in this

appeal, by special leave.

We have heard the learned counsel for the

parties and perused the impugned judgment as well as

the judgments passed by the Rent Control Appellate

Authority.

5

In our considered view, the High Court has

erred in reversing the findings of the Rent Control

Appellate Authority by not allowing the eviction,

especially when the tenant (1st respondent herein)

had acquired another building in the same locality

which is suitable for his business. The impugned

judgment is, therefore, erroneous and unsustainable

and the same is set aside.

The appeal is accordingly allowed. The parties

are directed to bear their respective costs.

However, in the facts and circumstances of

this case, the respondents are granted one year's

time for vacating the premises upon filing usual

undertaking in the Registry of this Court within

four weeks from today.

.....................J (DALVEER BHANDARI)

.....................J (DEEPAK VERMA)

New Delhi;

April 11, 2011.