IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

&

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN

TUESDAY, THE 27TH APRIL 2010 / 7TH VAISAKHA 1932

RCRev..No. 439 of 2005(C)

-------------------------------------

RCA.NO.49/1997 OF RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY (DISTRICT JUDGE,

THALASSERY,

RCP.NO.65/1996 OF RENT CONTROL COURT (PRL.MUNSIFF COURT).,KANNUR.

....................

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

PUTHANPURAYIL RAJAN, S/O.KANNAN,

AGED 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT SHREYAS, NEAR

PUZHATHI HOUSING COLONY, KANNUR -2.

BY ADV. SRI.V.RAJAGOPAL.

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

KOTHERI DILEEP KUMAR,

S/O.DAMODARAN, AGED 27 YEARS, RESIDING AT

“KRISHNADAS”, AMBIKA ROAD, P.O. PALLIKUNNU,

KANNUR 4.

BY ADVS. SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE,

SRI.M.K.SUMOD.

THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/08/2009,

ALONG WITH R.C.REV. NOS. 440/2005, 441/2005 & 206/2009, THE COURT

ON 27/04/2010 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

prv.

PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

R.C.R. NOS: 439, 440 & 441/05

and 206 OF 2009

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated this the 27^th April, 2010.

O R D E R

'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

RCR Nos: 439,440,441/05 & 206/09

2

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 demoli