Sankaran, J. The petitioners in these revisions are tenants. They challenge the concurrent findings of the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', in all the cases and under Section 11(4)(iii) of the Act in one case, namely, R.C.R.No.328/2014.
2. Seven Rent Control Petitions were filed jointly by eight persons claiming co-ownership rights over the petition schedule buildings situated in an extent of 13.5 cents of land in Perumbavoor town. The tenants occupied rooms in a line building situated in that property. The tenants are doing various businesses. The petitioners in the Rent Control Petitions formed a partnership.
They contended that the rooms in the occupation of the tenants are bona fide required for the purpose of the partnership to demolish the building, to construct a building of about 8690 sq.ft. and to conduct large scale textile business. Though various grounds were raised in the different Rent Control Petitions, what is relevant for the time being is the common ground under Section 11(3) of the Act. In R.C.P.No.6/2010 from which R.C.R.No.328/2014 arises, the ground under Section 11(4)(iii) is also relevant.
3. Before the Rent Control Court, four witnesses were examined on the side of the landlords and eight witnesses were examined on the side of the tenants. 151 documents were marked on the side of the landlords and 65 documents were marked on the side of the tenants. The Commissioner's report was also marked.
4. On a consideration of the pleadings and documentary and oral evidence, the Rent Control Court found that the bona fide need put forward by the landlords is genuine. The contention put forward by the tenants that they are entitled to the benefit of the 2nd proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act was negatived, though in two Rent Control Petitions (R.C.P.No.11/2010 and R.C.P.No.12/2010), the Rent Control Court found that the tenants would be entitled to the benefit of the first limb of the 2nd proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. The tenants filed appeals against the order of eviction and the landlords filed cross objections in respect of the grounds which were disallowed by the Rent Control Court. The Appellate Authority confirmed the findings of the Rent Control Court and dismissed the appeals and cross objections.
5. The case put forward by the landlords that they formed a partnership and the partners bona fide require to demolish the building and in that place to construct a multi storied building to conduct a large scale textile business was found acceptable on evidence by both the authorities. That is a finding of fact. We do not find any ground to interfere with that finding of fact arrived at by the authorities below.
6. The tenants contended that they are depending for their livelihood mainly on the income derived from the business conducted in the petition schedule building and that there are no other buildings available in the locality to accommodate their business. The courts below found on evidence that except the tenants in R.C.P.No.11/2010 and 12/2010, the other tenants failed to establish the first limb of the 2nd proviso that they are depending for their livelihood mainly on the income derived from the business conducted in the petition schedule building. In R.C.P.No.6/2010, the tenant was not examined. In R.C.P.No.7/2010, RW4 was examined. The Rent Control Court found, after analysing her evidence, that she failed to prove the first limb of the 2nd proviso. In R.C.P.No.9/2010, the tenant was examined as RW3. It has come out in evidence that he is a very rich man and his monthly sales would come to more than Rs.20 lakhs. His children are admittedly running several business concerns, though according to the landlords, the tenant himself is doing those businesses. In R.C.P.No.11/2010, the tenant was examined as RW6 and his son was examined as RW7. The tenant is running a barber shop. The Rent Control Court found that the income derived from the business conducted by him is the main source of his income. In R.C.P.No.12/2010, the tenant was examined as RW8. He is also a barber by profession. In that case also, the Rent Control Court found that the tenant is depending for his livelihood mainly on the income derived from the business conducted in the petition schedule building.
7. As regards the second limb of the 2nd proviso to Section 11 (3) of the Act, the Rent Control Court found, on the basis of Ext.A23 and Ext.A24 series of vacancy remission applications that a large number of buildings are available in the locality as vacant buildings. Ext.A25 would reveal that 107 rooms situated in the shopping complex of Perumbavoor Municipality are lying vacant. The tenant in R.C.P.No.6/2010 is the owner of a multi storied building where also vacant rooms are available. Exts.A34 to A37, Ext.A39 plan and Exts.A40 to A42 extracts of property tax register would prove that the tenant in R.C.P.No.6/010 is the owner of a multi storied building and several rooms in that building are lying vacant. The Commissioner's report would also indicate that in Perumbavoor Town, several vacant rooms are available for occupation by the tenants. The evidence of the tenants would show that they had never enquired about the vacancy position of the rooms in Perumbavoor Town. Thus on facts, the Rent Control Court held that several vacant rooms are available in the locality and the tenants can accommodate their business in those vacant buildings.
8. In R.C.P.No.6/2010, the tenant owns a multi storied building and vacant rooms are available there, as evident from the documents mentioned above. The Rent Control Court held that the landlords are entitled to get an order of eviction against him under Section 11(4)(iii) of the Act.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioners/tenants submitted that on a reading of the Rent Control Petitions, it would appear that the need of the landlords is to reconstruct the old building. If so, the tenants would be entitled to have the first option to occupy rooms in the reconstructed building. To circumvent the benefits that would accrue to the tenants, the landlords have adopted a dubious method by putting forward a contention that they want to reconstruct the building and occupy the same for running large scale textile business.
10. Copy of the pleadings and necessary documents were made available to us for perusal. We are not inclined to accept the contention raised by the tenants that the paramount need put forward in the Rent Control Petitions is one under Section 11(4)(iv) of the Act. On the other hand, the pleadings would make it clear that the need put forward by the landlords is a bona fide need coming under Section 11(3) of the Act. More over, the contentions put forward by the tenants would also indicate that they have understood the claim as one under Section 11(3) of the Act.
11. The learned counsel for the tenants submitted that the landlords want to construct a building having a plinth area of only 8690 sq.ft. while a building having larger space could be constructed on the land available. If so, the tenants could be given space in that building. Instead of doing so, with an oblique motive to evict the tenants, the landlords limited the plinth area of the building to 8690 sq. ft. which would cater to the alleged need of the landlords alone. The tenants cannot dictate to the landlords as to what type of building they should construct, what should be the plinth area thereof and what amenities should be provided therein. It is entirely in the discretion of the landlords to have a building of their choice and suitable for their requirements. That it is possible to construct a larger building so that the bona fide need of the landlords are satisfied and also provision can be made for the occupation of the tenants, would not make the landlords liable to construct such a building. The Rent Control Petitions cannot be dismissed on the ground that the landlords are not willing to construct such a larger building. The requirement under Section 11(3) of the Act is only to prove the bona fide need. If the bona fides are established, the court cannot put fetter on the rights of the landlords and impose conditions on them to construct a building of such a dimension to provide space for the tenants as well. That would be compelling the landlord to utilize the building and the land belonging to him against his wishes and there is no corresponding right for the tenants to insist on such restrictions. A tenant resisting a claim under Section 11(3) of the Act is entitled to only the rights which are conferred by the Statute, for example, the benefit under the 1st proviso and the 2nd proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. A category of benefits which is not contemplated by the Act cannot be read into Section 11 and thereby defeat the rights of the landlords. (See Sait Nagee Purushotham & Co. Ltd. v.
Vimalabai Prabhulal - [2005 (4) KLT 452 (SC)]).
12. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the 3rd petitioner in the Rent Control Petitions died during the pendency of the proceedings before the Rent Control Court and his legal representatives were impleaded as petitioners 9 and 10. Only the 9th petitioner is made a partner in the partnership. The 10th petitioner is not a partner of the partnership. Eviction is sought for the need of the partnership. It is submitted that in such a case, petitioners 1, 2 and 4 to 9 have to show that they are dependents on the 10th petitioner for the purpose of the building. We are unable to accept the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The legal representatives of the 3rd petitioner, who are petitioners 9 and 10, are co-owners along with the other petitioners. Majority of the co-owners formed a partnership, proposed to spend money and construct a building and to occupy it. The co-ownership right over the land continues with all of them including the person who has not become the partner. It is not necessary to prove that the other petitioners are dependents of the 10th petitioner. The dependency is to be proved where a person who has no co-ownership right or other right over the building but who is depending on the landlord, wants to occupy the building for his bona fide use. In such a case, it can be said that the landlord bona fide needs the building for the purpose of his dependent. If the person for whose need the tenant is sought to be evicted is one of the co-owners, there is no question of he being dependent on the other co-owners. If the other co-owners have no objection to his occupation of the building, the tenant cannot insist that he should be a dependent on the others for the purpose of the building and that he should prove the same.
13. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any ground to interfere with the well considered order and judgment passed by the courts below. The Rent Control Revisions are accordingly dismissed.
Lastly, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/tenants submitted that a reasonable time may be granted to the tenants to vacate the tenanted premises. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to grant time till 31.7.2015 to the tenants to vacate the premises. Accordingly, time upto 31.7.2015 is granted to the tenants to vacate the petition schedule building on condition that they shall file affidavits before the Rent Control Court on or before 31.1.2015, unconditionally undertaking to vacate the petition schedule building on or before 31.7.2015 and also on condition that the tenants shall deposit the entire arrears of rent, if any, before the Rent Control Court on or before 31.1.2015 and also continue to pay the monthly rent on or before 10th of the succeeding months. If the tenants fail to comply with any of the conditions mentioned above, the landlords would be entitled to proceed with the execution. If the tenants comply with the conditions, the execution proceedings shall not be commenced/continued till 31.7.2015.
K.T.SANKARAN JUDGE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE prp