Research › Browse › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

1954 DIGILAW 58 (KER)

C. N. Namboori v. C. K. Mani

1954-03-17

KOSHI, M.S.MENON

body1954
Judgment :- 1. The petitioner is a tenant of the Public Library, Kottayam, of which the 1st respondent is the Secretary. Eviction was sought by the landlord of the two rooms occupied by the petitioner on the ground that the rooms were required for the expansion of the library and was ordered by the Building Rent Controller, Kottayam, on 16.2.1952. The petitioner took up the matter in appeal to the District Collector, Kottayam, and in revision before the Government of Travancore Cochin, but without success and his prayers in this petition are that this court be pleased: 1. To call for the records in Buildings and Rent Control Petition (B.R.C.) NO. 20 of 1951 before the Building Rent Controller, Kottayam. and to quash by writ of certiorari or such other writs or orders all proceedings and orders passed in the said case; 2. to issue such order or orders or writs deemed just and proper to protect the rights of the petitioner detailed in the accompanying affidavit; 3. to restrain the 1st counter-petitioner from taking any proceedings in pursuance of the orders passed in B.R.C. No. 20 of 1951 for evicting the petitioner from the rooms he is in possession of, in the Kottayam Library Buildings; and 4. to award costs of the petitioner as against the 1st counter-petitioner and such other as may be found to be responsible." 2. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is no bonafides in the application made by the library and that the rooms are not really necessary for the expansion contemplated. The Building Rent Controller, the District Collector in appeal and the Government in revision have taken the view that the rooms are necessary for the expansion of the library and that the request is bonafide. The Building Rent Controller in his order in B.R.C.No. 20 of 1951 dated 16.2.1952 held: "Exts. A and B clearly show that the entire building is absolutely necessary for developing the library. The petitioner also swears to the same. The Building Rent Controller in his order in B.R.C.No. 20 of 1951 dated 16.2.1952 held: "Exts. A and B clearly show that the entire building is absolutely necessary for developing the library. The petitioner also swears to the same. From the records, I am satisfied that the two rooms are absolutely necessary for the landlord the Kottayam Public Library." The District Collector, Kottayam, in appeal, B.R.C. Appeal No.1 of 1952, affirmed the finding of the Building Rent Controller and the Government in their order No. D. Dis.10893/52/PWC dated the 4th August 1953 has said: "From the facts of the case, and the argument put forward by the parties, it is seen that there is real necessity for the owner to expand the business, with his own premises and that there is no other motive behind the attempt to get the premises vacated. The withholding of the municipal grant and the developments envisaged by the Grandhasala Sanghom amply testify to the necessity of the premises for the owner". We see no reason to depart from the conclusion arrived at by the Building Rent Controller, the District Collector in appeal and the Government of Travancore Cochin in revision. 3. The withholding of the municipal grant and the developments envisaged by the Grandhasala Sanghom amply testify to the necessity of the premises for the owner". We see no reason to depart from the conclusion arrived at by the Building Rent Controller, the District Collector in appeal and the Government of Travancore Cochin in revision. 3. The second point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no eviction should have been ordered in this case in view of clause 9(3)(a)(iii) of the Travancore Cochin Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Order, 1950, which reads as follows: "A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession, (iii) in the case of a non-residential building, if he is not occupying for purposes of a business which he is carrying on, a non-residential building in the town or village concerned which is his own or to the possession of which he is entitled or where it is required for the occupation of the landlord or for the bona fide separate residence of any undivided member of his family or tarwad and if the landlord or such member is not occupying a residential building owned by the landlord or the family or tarwad of such member as the case may be, in the town or village concerned; Provided that where the tenancy is for a specified period agreed upon between the landlord and the tenant, the landlord shall not be entitled to apply under this sub-clause before the expiry of such period." According to clause 2(1) of the Travancore Cochin Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Order, 1950: "Building" means any building or hut, or part of a building or but let or to be let separately for residential or non-residential purposes, and includes (a) the garden, grounds and out-houses, if any, appurtenant to such building but or part of such building or but and let or to be let along with such building or hut. (b) any furniture supplied by the landlord for use in such building or hut, or part of a building or but does not include a room in a hotel or boarding house", and the argument was that the portion of the building in the occupation of the landlord and the two rooms in the occupation of the petitioner should be considered as two separate non-residential "buildings" for the purpose of the Order and that so long as the landlord is in possession of one of the two "buildings" as he admittedly is, it is not possible for him to seek the eviction of the petitioner from the other building, that is the two rooms in his occupation. In other words, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the eviction of a tenant from a non-residential building for a non-residential purpose is impossible so long as the landlord is "occupying for purposes of a business which he is carrying on a non-residential building in the town or village concerned which is his own or to the possession of which he is entitled." 4. It was not contended before us that the running of a library is not a business though it appears to have been urged before the Government and negatived by them. They say in their Order: "The term 'business' in the Rent Control Order cannot be taken to exclude the functioning of a Public Library." 5. In the light of the wording of clause (9)(3)(a)(iii) read with clause 2(1) of the Travancore Cochin Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Order, 1950, it does not seem possible for the Public Library which is in occupation of a non-residential building for purposes of its business to obtain another non-residential "building" in the same town, namely, the two rooms concerned. The petition has hence to be allowed and we do so, but in the circumstances of the case we shall not make any order as to costs. Allowed.