Back
S.S.M.QUADRI, V.N.KHARE
Davis – Appellant
Versus
Sebastian – Respondent
Key Points: - The judgment holds that Section 11(8) allows additional accommodation for personal use in both residential and non-residential contexts, not limited to expansion of the landlord’s existing business. (!) (!) - It establishes that the requirements of sub-section (8) are: (i) landlord occupies part of building; (ii) tenant occupies remaining part; (iii) bona fide need for additional accommodation for personal use, with the Rent Controller applying additional safeguards via provisos to sub-section (10). (!) (!) - It clarifies that the provisions of sub-section (3) and sub-section (8) are different, with no scope for a case under sub-section (3) to recourse to sub-section (8) and vice versa; sub-section (3) includes hardship and livelihood considerations, while sub-section (8) centers on personal use for additional accommodation. (!) - The court emphasizes that even if bona fide need under Section 11(8) is established, relief cannot be granted without recording a finding under the first proviso to sub-section (10) concerning comparative hardship to the tenant. (!) (!) - The decision remits the matter to the High Court for fresh disposal in light of these interpretations, and the appeal is allowed. (!) (!)
Judgment
Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J.-This appeal is from the judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in C.R.P. No. 1778 of 1991-C dated July 28, 1994. The polemic centres round interpretation of the expression ‘personal use’ in sub-section (8) of Section 1 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short ‘the Kerala Act’).
2. A brief narration of the facts giving rise to this appeal is necessary to appreciate the question involved in this case. The question of bona fide requirement of additional accommodation under Section 11(8) of the Act alone is canvassed before us so we are confining the facts relevant to that ground. The appellant is the landlord and the respondent is the tenant of a shop room which is a portion of the main building of Irinjalakkuda Village, Mukundapuram Taluk, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the premises’). In the main building the appellant was running the business of hotel-cum-bar. On the plea that he had made all preparations for starting a jewellery shop and a textile shop and bona fide requires additional accommodation for the proposed business, he filed R.C.P. No. 31 of 1983 seeking eviction
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
