Landlords must be granted relief for eviction based on bona fide need without illegal or impossible conditions imposed by revisional authorities.

1All these writ petitions are filed by the same landlord and the orders that are challenged in these writ petitions are the same. The landlord filed a rent control petition R.C.P. No.12 of 1982 for eviction of the tenant for bona fide need of his own occupation of the building in question. This is a valid ground under S.11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The landlord also filed another petition R.C.P. No. 13 of 1982 in respect of an adjacent room to the building referred in R.C.P. No. 12 of 1982 for the same purpose. O.P.No. 892 of 1987 and O. P. No. 4436 of 1988 are from R. C. P. No. 12 of 1982 and O. P. No. 1018 of 1987 is from R. C. P. No. 13 of 1982. In R.C.P. No. 12 of 1982 as well as R.C.P. No. 13 of 1982, the Rent Controller after evaluating the evidence found that the landlord has established his case under S.11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. Though the bona fide need was found, the Rent Controller dismissed the application on the ground that the building sought to be evicted was for doing business by the grandson of the landlord and the Rent Controller held that the grandson is not a person dependant on the landlord. The landlord filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority as R.C.A.No.101 of 1983 and the tenant filed an appeal as R.C.A. No.4 of 1984. In regard to R.C.P. No. 13 of 1982 also the Rent Control Court found that the landlord has established his bona fide need for own occupation and dismissed the petition on the ground that the grandson is not a dependant on the landlord. There also, the landlord filed an appeal R.C.A. No. 102 of 1983 and the tenant filed an appeal R.C.A.2 of 1984. The tenant's appeal related to the finding of the Rent Control Court with regard to the bona fide need claimed by the landlord and the subject matter of the appeal by the landlord was that the finding of the Rent Control Court that the grandson is not a dependant on the landlord is incorrect. The Appellate Court allowed the appeals of the landlord and dismissed the appeals filed by the tenants. The tenant in R.C.P. No. 12 of 1982 filed two revision petitions R.C.R.P.No.48 of 1985 and R.C.R.P.No.49 of 1985. He filed two revision petitions, since his appeal was dismissed and the appeal of the landlord was allowed. The tenant in R.C.P. No. 13 of 1982 filed a revision before the District Court as R.C.R.P.No.50 of 1985. The tenant in R.C.P.No.13 of 1982 filed only one revision. The Revisional Court disposed of all the revision petitions by a common order. True copy of the common order is marked as Ext. P1 in all these original petitions.

2The Revisional Court though dismissed all the writ petitions filed by the tenants held that the order of eviction can be executed only if the landlord produces a licence for dealing in rubber before the Execution Court. This condition according to the landlord is a condition which is practically impossible to be performed. He submits that it is not possible to obtain licence without satisfying the authorities issuing the licence that the applicant has got a building for doing the business in his exclusive possession So long as, the building continues with the tenants, it is not at all possible for the landlord to obtain the licence and if he is not getting the licence he will not get possession of the building. This is simply creating a vicious circle and the landlord is prevented from executing the order. In short, what has really happened is that even though the landlord has satisfied the court that he needs the building bona fide for own occupation and that he has established the ease under S.11(3) of the Act, no relief is granted to the landlord. This is the main ground of attack made in these original petitions against the common order passed by the Revisional Authority. Before considering this question, I may now advert to certain proceedings that took place before the filing of these original petitions.

3The landlord has filed three civil revi