KANNACHANKANDY CHANDRAN Vs PEETIKAKANDY ACHUTHAN .
Bench: DALVEER BHANDARI,DEEPAK VERMA, , ,
Case number: C.A. No.-003328-003328 / 2011
Diary number: 28891 / 2006
Advocates: RAMESH BABU M. R. Vs
K. RAJEEV
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3328 OF 2011
(Arising out of SLP(C) No.2705/2007)
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.