The interpretation of Section 11(3) allowing eviction for the demolition of premises to widen a pathway is correct.

JUDGMENT:

HARJIT SINGH BEDI,J

This appeal by special leave arises out of the following facts:

The petitioners before the Rent Controller (brother and sisters respectively) are the owners of the premises in question.

On 1.1.1984 by an oral agreement, the premises were rented out to the appellant/tenants herein for a period of three months, by the original sole landlord Akkali Purushothaman.

On 23.4.1991 Akkali Purushothaman gifted the demised premises to his two sisters. These premises consisted of just one room situated in front of another residential building belonging to the two sisters. The three landlords thereafter filed a petition for the ejectment of the tenant(s) under Sections 11(2), 11(3) and 11(4) (i) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1965 (hereinafter called the Act) alleging therein that the tenant was in arrears of rent, that he had sub-leased the premises without the knowledge or consent of the landlords and finally that the sisters needed the premises for their own use and occupation as it had to be demolished to widen the pathway leading to the building that was situated behind the demised premises. The issues raised by the landlords were controverted by the tenant, who pleaded that the room had been let out to him on 1.1.1982, that there were no arrears of rent as claimed, that no sub-lease had been created, that there was no other suitable place to which he could shift his business as his only source of income was generated from the demised premises and, finally, that the landlords plea that the premises had to be demolished to widen the pathway did not constitute personal necessity. On the pleadings of the parties, the Rent Controller framed the following points for determination:

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled for an eviction as prayed under Section 11(2) of the Act?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for an eviction as prayed under Section 11(3) of the Act?

3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for an eviction as prayed for under Section 11(4) of the Act?

4. Relief and costs.

The Rent Controller in his judgment dated 29th June 1995 held that the tenant was in arrears of rent and was therefore liable to ejectment under Section 11(2) of the Act. On point No.2, the Rent Controller observed that the two sisters were residing in a rented building at Kannur and that they intended to shift to their own residential house situated behind the demised premises and that for their convenient and beneficial stay the existing pathway, which was only 3.5 feet wide, had to be widened and that Section 11(3) of the Act would also apply to a case where the landlord bona fide required the rented building for its demolition so as to facilitate the ingress and egress to another residential building belonging to him. The Rent Controller rejected the plea of the tenant that he was solely dependent on the income derived from the business conducted from the demised premises observing that he was, in fact, an autorickshaw driver and owned atleast one if not two such vehicles. His plea that the autorickshaws belonged to one Anil was rejected by observing that he had not been examined as a witness. The tenants ancillary submission that he had been unable to find suitable accommodation for relocating himself on account of very high rents was also not accepted as he had been unable to show as to the enquiries that he had made in this regard. Point No.3 was given up by the landlord but as a result of the discussion on point Nos. 1 and 2, the Rent Controller allowed the petition and ordered ejectment under sections 11(2) and 11(3) of the Act. The tenant thereupon filed an appeal before the appellate authority which in its order dated 5th June, 1998 observed that the entire arrears of rent till date had, in the meanwhile, been paid and as such the only issue that now survived was with regard to the ejectment ordered under Section 11(3). The appellate authority on a