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.