The court clarified that the right to reinduction under the third proviso of Section 11(4)(iv) applies exclusively to evictions executed under that specific section.

O R D E R

Anil K. Narendran, J The petitioners-tenants filed R.C.P.No.86 of 2014 on the file of the Rent Control Court (Munsiff) Vatakara, invoking the 3rd proviso to Section 11 (4)(iv) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 to re-induct them into the reconstructed building owned by the respondents-landlords herein. That petition ended in dismissal by the order dated 04.02.2017 of the Rent Control Court. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners-tenants filed R.C.A.No.86 of 2017 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Additional District Judge), Vatakara under Section 18 (1)(b) of the Act, which also ended in dismissal, thereby confirming the order passed by the Rent Control Court in R.C.P.No.86 of 2014. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 04.02.2017 of the Rent Control Court in R.C.P.No.86 of 2014 and also the judgment of the Appellate Authority dated 24.06.2019 in R.C.A No.86 of 2017, the petitioners are before this Court in this Rent Control Revision, invoking the revisional jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Act.

2. On 23.07.2021, when this Rent Control Revision came up for admission, this Court issued urgent notice on admission by speed post to the respondents-landlords, returnable within three weeks.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the learned counsel for the respondents.

4. The issue that arises for consideration in this Rent Control Revision is as to whether any interference is warranted in the order of the Rent Control Court dated 04.02.2017 in R.C.P.No.86 of 2014 and the judgment of the Appellate Authority dated 24.06.2019 in R.C.A.No.86 of 2017, invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 20 of the Act.

5. The pleadings and materials on record would show that the petitioners were tenants of a building owned by the respondents. In the year 2013, due to heavy rain, cracks were developed in the building on its southern wall. Consequently, they were evicted from the premises based on the orders of the Tahasildar and the building was also pulled down by the Tahsildar using earth mover. According to the petitioners they have sent notice to the respondents to reconstruct the building within six months. On receipt of such notice, the respondents approached them and assured that reconstruction of the building can be carried out at the earliest and that, they will be allotted rooms in the reconstructed building for conducting their business. On the respondents completing the reconstruction of the 1st floor, the petitioners approached them. However, the respondents refused to re-induct them, as promised. In such circumstances, the petitioners filed R.C.P.No.86 of 2014 before the Rent Control Court, invoking the 3rd proviso to Section 11 (4)(iv) of the Act seeking re-induction.

6. The Rent Control Court as well as the Appellate Authority concurrently found that since the eviction of the petitioners from the tenanted premises was not based on an order of eviction passed in a petition filed by the respondents herein under Section 11 (4)(iv) of the Act, the 3rd proviso to (4)(iv) has no application and as such they are not entitled for the relief sought for in R.C.P.No.86 of 2014.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners-tenants would contend that the 3rd proviso to Section 11 (4)(iv) of the Act has application, even in a case in which the tenants are not evicted from the tenanted premises based on an order of eviction passed under (4)(iv) of the Act. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents-landlords would contend that the benefit of the 3rd proviso to (4)(iv) of the Act can be claimed only by those tenants who have been evicted from the tenanted premises based on an order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court under (4)(iv) of the Act.

8. Section 11 of the Act deals with eviction of tenants. As per (1), notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract a tenant shall not be evicted, whether in executio