Point of Law: Right to property, though not a fundamental right is still a constitutional right. Article 300 A of the Constitution of India proclaims that no person can be deprived of his property save by authority of law, meaning thereby that a person cannot be deprived of his property without any specific legal authority or without the support of law made by a competent legislature.

ORDER :

C.S.Sudha, J.

These Rent Control Revision petitions (R.C.Rs.) under Section 20 of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (the Act) are filed by the petitioner-landlord against the common judgment dated 31/03/2014 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (RCAA), Thalassery, in R.C.A.No.159, 160, 161, 162, 165, 166, 167, 168, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 189, 190, 191, 192 and 193/2010. Thirty five Rent Control Petitions (R.C.Ps.), namely, R.C.P.No.112, 122, 123, 124, 125, 127, 128, 129, 131, 132, 133, 134, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 160, 161, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167 and 168/2006, were filed before the Rent Control Court (RCC), Thalassery, seeking eviction, mainly under Sections 11(3) and 11(4)(iv) of the Act. In R.C.P.No.123, 124, 127, 132, 133, 161 and 166 of 2006, the ground under Section 11(4) (iv) of the Act was also taken up. In R.C.P.No.123, 127, 132, 133, 161 and 166 of 2006, the ground under Section 11(4)(v) of the Act was also taken up. By a common order dated 27/02/2010, all the R.C.Ps. were dismissed. The petitioner-landlord filed the aforesaid appeals against the order of dismissal. The RCAA by a common judgment dated 31/03/2014 confirmed the order of dismissal by the RCC. It is against the concurrent findings of the courts below resulting in rejection of the claim for eviction on all grounds sought, the present R.C.Rs. have been filed by the petitioner landlord/appellant. The respondents-tenants in the R.C.Ps., who are the respondents before the RCAA are the respondents herein.

1.1. When the matter was taken up for hearing, it was submitted that R.C.R.No.184, 187, 192, 193, 197, 213, 218, 223 and 234 of 2014 which arose from R.C.A.No.182, 181, 186, 187, 166, 168, 162, 190 and 192 of 2010, have been settled between the parties. The respondents in R.C.R.No.206 and 217 of 2014 have died and steps have been initiated to implead their legal representatives. Apart from these cases, we propose to dispose of the remaining R.C.Rs. by this common order. The parties in these revision petitions will be referred to as described in the R.C.Ps.

2. The tenanted premises in the R.C.Ps. are rooms in a single building by name, Jayasree complex. In the R.C.Ps. it is alleged that the petitioner, the owner of the building, bona fide requires the schedule rooms for his own occupation for running a modern restaurant cum supermarket. According to the petitioner, the entire building is an old and dilapidated one. Hence the entire complex needs to be reconstructed into a modern multi-storied building with necessary facilities so as to start his proposed business. He is presently conducting a business in Muscat, which he intends to wind-up, return and settle down in his native place. Therefore, after reconstruction he requires the building for his own need. Though the respondents have been requested to vacate the premises, they have refused to do so and hence the R.C.Ps.

3. The respondents-tenants denied the bona fide need as well as the need for reconstruction alleged in the petitions. According to them, the petitioner is in possession of several other buildings and vacant plots in the same city, which are quite suitable for the need alleged. The claim has been made with a mala fide intention to evict the respondents. The respondents tenants also claim the benefit of the second proviso to Section 11(3).

4. In the revision petition filed it is alleged that the findings of the courts below are illegal, irregular and improper and therefore an interference is called for.

5. Heard both sides.

6. As stated earlier, it is the concurrent findings of the courts below that have been challenged in these proceedings by the petitioner landlord. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to briefly refer to the scope of revision contemplated under Section 20 of the Act. As per the Section, the High Court may, at any time, on the applic