K.T.Sankaran, J.
The landlady in a Rent Control Petition, against whom an order under Section 11(12) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short, the “Act”), was passed by the Rent Control Court and which was confirmed by the Appellate Authority, is the revision petitioner. The petitioner filed the Rent Control Petition against the respondent under Section 11(3) of the Act for getting vacant possession of the petition schedule building for the bona fide use of landlady's son, Dr.Arif for the purpose of running a Dental Clinic. Though the Rent Control Court dismissed the petition for eviction, it was reversed by the Appellate Authority and it was confirmed by the High Court. The tenant requested for time before the High Court to vacate the petition schedule building and time upto 30/09/2006 was granted to him to vacate. It is submitted that before that date, he surrendered the key of the building before Court. The landlady got delivery of the building on 17/10/2006.
2. Alleging that the landlady did not occupy the building within one month from the date of obtaining possession, the respondent-tenant filed an application under Section 11(12) of the Act before the Rent Control Court on 10/01/2007. That application was allowed by the Rent Control Court and it was confirmed by the Appellate Authority, which is under challenge in this revision filed by the landlady.
3. According to the respondent-tenant, the landlady did not occupy the building and her son did not open the Clinic in the building within one month from the date of obtaining possession of the building. According to the tenant, the landlady had no reasonable cause for such non occupation. According to the landlady, the building was occupied only on 16/01/2007 and there was reasonable cause for her non occupation within one month from the date of obtaining possession. Before the Rent Control Court, the tenant was not examined in support of the application. His father was examined as PW1 and the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat was examined as PW2. The son of the landlady was examined as RW1.
4. Certain facts are undisputed. The landlady got delivery of the building on 17/10/2006. The application under Section 11(12) of the Act was filed on 10/01/2007. The Commissioner inspected the building on 10/01/2007. He reported that as on the date of inspection, there was no sign of any occupation by the landlady. On 16/01/2007, the son of the landlady made Ext.B16 application to the local authority for issuing licence for opening the Clinic, he having obtained Ext.B15 consent from his mother, the landlady. On 16/01/2007, the son of the landlady made Ext.B17 application to the local authority for issuing ownership certificate for running the Clinic in the petition schedule building. Ext.B19 consent was given by the landlady in that regard. On 01/02/2007, the local authority rejected the application for licence submitted by the son of the landlady on the ground that the tenant objected to the issue of licence stating that the matter is pending before the court. The objection dated 25/01/2007 filed by the tenant was referred to in Ext.P20 order issued by the Secretary of the Panchayat refusing licence. On 05/02/2007, the Rent Control Court passed an order directing the landlady and her son to maintain status quo in respect of the petition schedule building. That order was passed on the application filed by the tenant.
5. Apart from the above undisputed facts, there are certain other aspects pointed out by the landlady in support of her contention that there was reasonable cause for non occupation within the period of one month.
She stated that on 02/10/2006, her mother was hospitalised and she remained as an in-patient till 21/10/2006. PW1, the father of the tenant pretended ignorance of the same. Landlady also contended that on 22/10/2006, she fell ill due to mental depression and she was undergoing treatment as an out-patient for the period from 22/10/2006 to 28/11/2006, which is evidenced by Exts.B3 and B4 prescriptions. PW1 was unaware of it, going by his evidence. The landlady also contended that on 02/12/2006, she along with her husband went for Haj pilgrimage and they returned to India only on 14/01/2007. Ext.B21 passport was produced to prove the same. There is no serious dispute about this. Ext.B21 conclusively establishes that the landlady had gone for Haj pilgrimage and she came back to India on 14/01/2007. It has to be noted that after getting the consent of the landlady, her son filed Ext.B16 application on 16/01/2007 before the local authority for issuing licence. It has also come out in evidence that the son of the landlady was making preparations for opening the Clinic after purchasing necessary articles for the same. The aforesaid facts would clearly show that the landlady and her son made earnest efforts to occupy the petition schedule building, and they made preparations for the same but they could occupy the building only in January, 2007. That the landlady went for Haj pilgrimage on 02/12/2006, by itself, is a sufficient reason to establish the reasonable cause. A person, who goes for Haj pilgrimage has to take necessary steps for the same, attend classes and get ready for the journey. The last date of one month from the date of obtaining possession expired on 17/11/2006. Within a few days, the landlady had to go for Haj pilgrimage.
6. Section 11(12) of the Act reads as follows:
“(12) Where a landlord who has obtained possession of a building in pursuance of an order under sub-section (3) does not occupy it without reasonable cause within one month of the date of obtaining possession, or having so occupied it, vacates it without reasonable cause within six months of such date, the tenant who has been evicted may apply to the Rent Control Court for an order directing that he shall be restored to possession of the building, and the Court shall make an order accordingly notwithstanding anything contained in section 4.”
The expression “without reasonable cause”, occurring in sub-section (12) of Section 11 of the Act, cannot be interpreted in a restrictive sense. The purpose and intent of sub-section (12) is to restrict the landlord from unjustifiably getting vacant possession of tenanted building under the pretext of bona fide need and after getting possession to restrict the landlord from disposing of the same for other purposes. In such a situation, the court is not powerless. The tenant is given liberty to apply before the court for restoration of possession. That means, a landlord, who gets an order of eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act, cannot deal with the building otherwise than for the bona fide need for which eviction was sought. If he does so, the consequence of the same would be restoration of possession of the building to the tenant, unless the landlord establishes reasonable cause as provided under sub-section (12) of Section 11 of the Act. The burden to establish reasonable cause is certainly on the landlord. The burden of proof in that regard is not a rigid one and “reasonable cause” cannot be assessed with mathematical precision. There may be a host of situations where a landlord, who got vacant possession of the building, may fail to occupy it within one month. All such situations cannot be treated in the same manner in all cases. If a reasonable and true explanation is offered by the landlord for non occupation of the building within one month from the date of obtaining possession, the court will accept the same, depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. No straight-jacket formula can be adopted to ascertain what is reasonable cause. It varies from case to case and from situation to situation. The normal human conduct and the circumstances under which the landlord could not occupy the building are all relevant factors to be taken note of, to arrive at a conclusion whether the landlord had reasonable cause for non occupation within a period of one month.
7. The courts below, in our view, took a hyper-technical view of the matter and erroneously held that the landlady failed to establish reasonable cause within the meaning of sub-section (12) of Section 11 of the Act for non occupation of the building within one month. There is patent illegality and impropriety in the order and judgment of the authorities below warranting interference under Section 20 of the Act. Accordingly, we allow the revision, set aside the order and judgment of the authorities below and dismiss the application filed by the tenant under Section 11(12) of the Act.
Sd/-
K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE ms