Page 1

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 6819-6820 OF 2009 VALIYAVALAPPIL SAROJAKSHAN & ORS.            Appellant(s)

                               VERSUS SUMALSANKAR GAIKEVADA & ORS.                 Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

KURIAN, J. 1. In the present appeals, we are called upon to consider the interplay between Section 11(4)(iii) and Section 11(4)(iv) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (in short, “the Act”). 2. The  provisions  to  the  extent  relevant  read  as follows :-

“(iii) If the tenant already has in his  possession  a  building  or subsequently  acquires  possession  of or  puts  up  a   building,  reasonably sufficient  for  his  requirements  in the same city, town or village; or (iv)  If  the  building  is  in  such  a condition  that  it  needs reconstruction  and  if  the  landlord requires  bona  fide  to   reconstruct the  same  and  if  he  satisfies  the court  that  he  has  the  plan  and licence,  if  any  required,   and  the ability to build and if the proposal is  not  made  as  a  pretext  for

Page 2

eviction;  Provided that the landlord who  evicts  a  tenant  and   does  not reconstruct  completely  the  building within a  time which may be fixed or extended by the Rent Control Court, shall on a petition before that Court be liable to a fine of rupees five hundred,  if  its  proved  that  he  has wilfully  neglected  to  reconstruct completely  the  building  within  such time; provided further that the court shall have power at any time to issue directions  regarding  the reconstruction of the building and on failure  of  compliance  by  the landlord, to give effect to the order in any manner the Court deems fit and in  appropriate  cases  to  put  the tenant  back  in  possession  or  award the evicted tenant damages equal tot he  excess  rent  he  has  to  pay  for another building that he is occupying in  consequence  of  such  eviction; provided further that the tenant who was  evicted  shall  have  the  first option  to  have  the  reconstructed building  allotted  to  him  with liability to pay its fair rent.”

3. The appellants filed Rent Control Petition Nos. 82 of 1994 and 83 of 1994 on the file of the Rent Control  Court,  Vatakara,  seeking  eviction  of  the respondents-tenants, mainly under Sections 11(4)(iii) and 11(4)(iv).

Page 3

4. The  Rent  Control  Court  allowed  the  petitions under Sections 11(4)(iv) on the ground of requirement for demolition and reconstruction.

5. Aggrieved,  the  appellants-landlords  pursued  the eviction before the first Appellate Authority on the ground  also  of  Section  11(4)(iii),  which  had  been declined  by  the  Rent  Control  Court.   The  first Appellate Authority, in RCA No. 106 of 1997 and 107 of  1997,  entered  a  finding  that  the respondents-tenants were in possession of buildings of their own, which were reasonably sufficient for their  requirement  in  the  same  town  and,  hence, allowed the eviction on the ground of Section 11(4) (iii) as well.

6. While  the  Rent  Control  appeals  were  pending before  the  first  Appellate  Authority,  the appellants-landlords took delivery of the premises in execution  proceedings.   The  order  passed  by  the Appellate Authority happened to be passed after such delivery.

7. The respondents-tenants pursued the matter before the High Court in Civil Revision Petition Nos. 1274 and 1377 of 2000, leading to the impugned Judgment.

Page 4

8. The High Court has taken a view that once the delivery of the premises had already been taken in execution  and  for  that  matter,  in  case  vacant possession of the premises had been surrendered, no further proceedings for eviction can be pursued on any other ground.  In the instant case, the delivery of possession had already been taken.  The High Court observed that “…......the subject matter of eviction proceedings  itself  having  become  non-est  by  such

demolition,  the  landlord  could  not  have  proceeded

further with a claim for eviction on other grounds,

inter alia, on ground under Section 11(4)(iii) of the

Act,  which  was  illegally  allowed  by  the  Appellate

Authority.”  In that view of the matter, the Civil Revision Petitions were allowed.  The orders passed by the first Appellate Authority were set aside and those of the Rent Control Court were restored.  In other  words,  the  appellants-landlords  have  been granted eviction only on the ground of demolition and reconstruction under Section 11(4)(iv) of the Act.

9. Thus  aggrieved,  the  appellants-landlords  are before this Court.

10. Heard  Sh.  R.  Basant,  learned  senior  counsel appearing for the appellants-landlords and Sh.Ranjith

Page 5

K.C.,  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the respondents-tenants.

11. With  great  respect,  we  find  it  difficult  to appreciate the view taken by the High Court.  The moot question is whether the landlords are entitled to eviction on all the grounds taken by the landlords in the petitions for eviction.  It needs to be noted that eviction on the respective grounds under the Act has different ramifications since the grounds being distinct and separate.  Therefore, merely because the landlords have taken possession on the basis of an order for eviction granted on one ground, that does not  mean  that  the  surviving  grounds  have  become non-est.   For  all  practical  purposes  and  legal consequences,  the  said  grounds  do  survive  to  be considered under law.

12. We find that in the instant case, the High Court has not considered the revision petitions filed by the respondents-tenants on merits on account of the view taken by the High Court, which we have found to be unacceptable.  Therefore, the only course open to this Court is to set aside the impugned Judgment and send the matter to the High Court for consideration on merits.

Page 6

13. Therefore,  these  appeals  are  allowed.   The impugned orders are set aside.  The Civil Revision Petitions  are  remitted  to  the  High  Court  for consideration on merits on the grounds taken by the respondents-tenants before the High Court.  Since the proceedings for eviction had been initiated in the year 1994, we request the High Court to dispose of the  civil  revision  petitions  expeditiously  and preferably within six months.

14. Needless also to say that the claims, if any, made by the respondents-tenants need to be considered only  after  the  disposal  of  the  civil  revision petitions by the High Court.

No costs.    .......................J.

             [ KURIAN JOSEPH ]  

.......................J.               [R. BANUMATHI ]  

New Delhi; March 29, 2017.