PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.

Under challenge in this revision petition filed under Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965 filed by the tenant is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court against the revision petitioner on the ground under Section 11(4)(iii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 i.e., tenant having possession of other buildings reasonably sufficient for his requirements in the same city, town or village. The litigation has had a chequered carrear. In the first instance the RCP was allowed by the Rent Control Court. The eviction order was confirmed by the appellate authority. Finally the matter reached this Court in C.R.P. No: 2258/1991. By that time the Government initiated land acquisition proceedings for the acquisition of buildings having door Nos: 160 and 161 - the two buildings on the basis of which eviction order was passed against the tenant under Section 11(4)(iii). Certain documents were produced by the tenant before this Court to show that buildings having door Nos:160 and 161 were under acquisition proceedings. When the application seeking reception of documents came up for consideration it was submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the landlord that the landlord was being taken by surprise and that opportunity should be given to the landlord for adducing evidence. Thus, obviously on the basis of consensus, the judgments of the appellate authority and the Rent Control Court were set aside and the matter was remanded to the Rent Control Court. The documents were also transmitted to the Rent Control Court and both sides were permitted to adduce fresh evidence regarding the eviction ground under the Act. As regards the ground under Section 11(3) which was declined the landlord was permitted to file a fresh Rent Control Petition.

2. The matter was considered pursuant to the order of remand in C.R.P.2258/1991 by the Rent Control Court. That Court, again passed order of eviction under Section 11(4) (iii). The Court held that the acquisition proceedings was initiated more than twenty years, after the commencement of the rent control proceedings will not result in eclipsing the liability entailed by the tenant. The Court also noticed that the tenant himself was the owner of buildings having door Nos: 160 & 161 and that the entire compensation for those buildings was received by the tenant and if that, if necessary it will be possible for the tenant to acquire another building with the money received by him as compensation. Appeal was preferred by the tenant. The appellate authority also concurred with the findings of the Rent Control Court and confirmed the order of eviction.

3. Adv. Shri. G. Mohan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner addressed strenuously and persuasively on the various grounds raised in the memorandum of revision. The learned counsel drew our attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu v. The Motor & General Traders (AIR 1975 S.C.1409) and judgment of this Court in Korah Abraham v. Varughis {2004(2) KLT 192}. The learned counsel argued that the subsequent event of the rooms having door Nos: 160 & 161 being acquired by the Government, is of fundamental impact on the right of the landlord to get eviction on the ground under Section 11(4)(iii) and the liability of the tenant is to suffer eviction on that ground. According to the learned counsel, the legislative objective underlying Clause (iii) of Sub Section (4) of Section 11 is that tenant who is having another building which is reasonably sufficient for his requirements should not be allowed to retain possession of the building which is the subject matter of the RCP. The counsel submitted that as on today that apart from the petition schedule building, the tenant has no other building in his possession for carrying on business. The submissions of Mr. Mohan were very forcefully resisted by Adv. Shri. T.P.