'CR'

SURENDRA MOHAN, J.

The common question that arises for consideration in these revisions is:-

"Whether the availability of another vacant plot of land in the ownership and possession of the landlord would attract the prohibition or the bar contained in the first proviso to Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent control) Act, 1965?"

2. RCR Nos: 439/05, 440/05 & 441/2005 arises from a common order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thalassery while RCR 206/2009 is filed against the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thalassery in rent control proceedings that relate to a totally different premises where the parties are also different. However, all the revisions are considered together for the reason that, the question of law that has been raised for consideration is common to all the revisions. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as the landlord and tenant.

3. RCR 439/2005, 440/2005 & 441/2005 are three revisions filed by the landlord against concurrent orders passed by the Rent Control Court and confirmed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority declining orders of eviction under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for short. The landlord filed three Rent Control petitions RCP Nos: 63/96, 65/96 and 67/96 against three different tenants seeking eviction on the ground of bonafide need under Section 11(3) of the Act. The buildings are adjacent to each other and are located in the same plot of land, where the tenants are engaged in different businesses. According to the landlord, the building originally belonged to Vinodhini, who is no more. During her life time itself, she had issued a notice to the tenant in RCP 63/96 alleging that she wanted to demolish the building for the purpose of conducting repairs of a lorry and autorickshaw that belonged to the petitioner. After her death the title to the property devolved on the petitioner. The tenants attorned to him and thus, he became landlord in respect of the building. It is the case of the petitioner that his wife had passed away following a heart operation at Delhi for which he had to incur considerable expenses. The petitioner had to sell his lorry and also had to incur other liabilities. According to the landlord, he wants to start a spare parts shop in the building and also wants to provide a space for parking and for repairing autorickshaws. Therefore, he wants to demolish the tenanted premises and to put up a building suitable for his own bonafide need.

4. The tenants disputed the need that was put forward by the landlord, contending that he had not acquired title to the building since the partition arrangement to which he traced his title, had been set aside. However, the main contention of the tenants have been that the landlord could very well make the proposed construction in the land that was remaining vacant and appurtenant to the tenanted premises. The said vacant land according to the tenants was sufficient for making any construction that was necessary for the proposed business of the landlord.

5. The Rent Control Court tried all the three petitions on the above pleadings, treating RCP No: 63/96 as the leading case. The evidence in the case consists of Exts. A1 to A17 documents and the oral evidence of the landlord as P.W.1 on the side of the petitioner and Exts.B1 to B7 documents and the oral testimonies of R.Ws 1 to 3 on the side of the respondents-tenants. R.Ws 1 to 3 are the tenants in the Rent Control Petitions.

6. The Trial Court on an evaluation of the evidence found that the property had roads on its northern and eastern sides. According to the Trial Court, it was not necessary for the spare parts shop and the garage to be under the same roof. If the landlord wanted, he could locate the buildings that were necessary for satisfying his need, on the southern side of the existing building. It was therefore, found that