VALIYAVALAPPIL SAROJAKSHAN & ORS. Vs. SUMALSANKAR GAIKEVADA & ORS.
Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)
Appeal (Civil), 6819-6820 of 2009, Judgment Date: Mar 29, 2017
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 6819-6820 OF 2009
VALIYAVALAPPIL SAROJAKSHAN & ORS. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
SUMALSANKAR GAIKEVADA & ORS. Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
KURIAN, J.
1. In the present appeals, we are called upon to consider the interplay
between Section 11(4)(iii) and Section 11(4)(iv) of the Kerala Buildings
(Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (in short, “the Act”).
2. The provisions to the extent relevant read as follows :-
“(iii) If the tenant already has in his possession a building or
subsequently acquires possession of or puts up a building, reasonably
sufficient for his requirements in the same city, town or village; or
(iv) If the building is in such a condition that it needs reconstruction
and if the landlord requires bona fide to reconstruct the same and if he
satisfies the court that he has the plan and licence, if any required, and
the ability to build and if the proposal is not made as a pretext for
eviction; Provided that the landlord who evicts a tenant and does not
reconstruct completely the building within a time which may be fixed or
extended by the Rent Control Court, shall on a petition before that Court
be liable to a fine of rupees five hundred, if its proved that he has
wilfully neglected to reconstruct completely the building within such time;
provided further that the court shall have power at any time to issue
directions regarding the reconstruction of the building and on failure of
compliance by the landlord, to give effect to the order in any manner the
Court deems fit and in appropriate cases to put the tenant back in
possession or award the evicted tenant damages equal tot he excess rent he
has to pay for another building that he is occupying in consequence of such
eviction; provided further that the tenant who was evicted shall have the
first option to have the reconstructed building allotted to him with
liability to pay its fair rent.”
3. The appellants filed Rent Control Petition Nos. 82 of 1994 and 83 of
1994 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Vatakara, seeking eviction of
the respondents-tenants, mainly under Sections 11(4)(iii) and 11(4)(iv).
4. The Rent Control Court allowed the petitions under Sections 11(4)(iv)
on the ground of requirement for demolition and reconstruction.
5. Aggrieved, the appellants-landlords pursued the eviction before the
first Appellate Authority on the ground also of Section 11(4)(iii), which
had been declined by the Rent Control Court. The first Appellate
Authority, in RCA No. 106 of 1997 and 107 of 1997, entered a finding that
the respondents-tenants were in possession of buildings of their own, which
were reasonably sufficient for their requirement in the same town and,
hence, allowed the eviction on the ground of Section 11(4)(iii) as well.
6. While the Rent Control appeals were pending before the first
Appellate Authority, the appellants-landlords took delivery of the premises
in execution proceedings. The order passed by the Appellate Authority
happened to be passed after such delivery.
7. The respondents-tenants pursued the matter before the High Court in
Civil Revision Petition Nos. 1274 and 1377 of 2000, leading to the impugned
Judgment.
8. The High Court has taken a view that once the delivery of the
premises had already been taken in execution and for that matter, in case
vacant possession of the premises had been surrendered, no further
proceedings for eviction can be pursued on any other ground. In the
instant case, the delivery of possession had already been taken. The High
Court observed that “…......the subject matter of eviction proceedings
itself having become non-est by such demolition, the landlord could not
have proceeded further with a claim for eviction on other grounds, inter
alia, on ground under Section 11(4)(iii) of the Act, which was illegally
allowed by the Appellate Authority.” In that view of the matter, the Civil
Revision Petitions were allowed. The orders passed by the first Appellate
Authority were set aside and those of the Rent Control Court were restored.
In other words, the appellants-landlords have been granted eviction only
on the ground of demolition and reconstruction under Section 11(4)(iv) of
the Act.
9. Thus aggrieved, the appellants-landlords are before this Court.
10. Heard Sh. R. Basant, learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellants-landlords and Sh.Ranjith K.C., learned counsel appearing for the
respondents-tenants.
11. With great respect, we find it difficult to appreciate the view taken
by the High Court. The moot question is whether the landlords are entitled
to eviction on all the grounds taken by the landlords in the petitions for
eviction. It needs to be noted that eviction on the respective grounds
under the Act has different ramifications since the grounds being distinct
and separate. Therefore, merely because the landlords have taken
possession on the basis of an order for eviction granted on one ground,
that does not mean that the surviving grounds have become non-est. For all
practical purposes and legal consequences, the said grounds do survive to
be considered under law.
12. We find that in the instant case, the High Court has not considered
the revision petitions filed by the respondents-tenants on merits on
account of the view taken by the High Court, which we have found to be
unacceptable. Therefore, the only course open to this Court is to set
aside the impugned Judgment and send the matter to the High Court for
consideration on merits.
13. Therefore, these appeals are allowed. The impugned orders are set
aside. The Civil Revision Petitions are remitted to the High Court for
consideration on merits on the grounds taken by the respondents-tenants
before the High Court. Since the proceedings for eviction had been
initiated in the year 1994, we request the High Court to dispose of the
civil revision petitions expeditiously and preferably within six months.
14. Needless also to say that the claims, if any, made by the respondents-
tenants need to be considered only after the disposal of the civil revision
petitions by the High Court.
No costs.
.......................J.
[ KURIAN JOSEPH ]
.......................J.
[R. BANUMATHI ]
New Delhi;
March 29, 2017.