Back
Judges : K.T.THOMAS,N.DHINAKAR
Raghavan - Appellant
Versus
Govindan Nambiar - Respondent
Case No : C.R.P.NO.2517 of 1994
Decided On : 03/08/1995
Advocates Appeared :
T.A. Ramadasan For Petitioner K.V. Sohan For Respondent
The landlord sought eviction of the tenant for accommodating his eldest son's proposed grocery business. The tenant contended that he is entitled to protection from eviction under the first proviso to S.11(3) of the Act, as the landlord had vacant possession of another building adjacent to the petition schedule building. The court discussed the provisions of S.11(3) and its provisos, emphasizing the requirement of special reasons for eviction despite the landlord's possession of another building. The court found that the landlord failed to establish special reasons and set aside the eviction order.
Fact of the Case:
The landlord sought eviction of the tenant to accommodate his eldest son's proposed grocery business. The tenant contended that he is entitled to protection from eviction under the first proviso to S.11(3) of the Act, as the landlord had vacant possession of another building adjacent to the petition schedule building.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the landlord failed to establish special reasons for eviction despite his possession of another building.
Issues: The main issue was whether the tenant could seek protection under the first proviso to S.11(3) of the Act due to the landlord's vacant possession of another building.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the requirement of special reasons for eviction despite the landlord's possession of another building, as per the provisions of S.11(3) and its provisos.
Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned judgment of the Appellate Authority and disposed of the revision accordingly.
Certainly. Here are the key points from the provided legal document:
The case concerns a landlord-tenant dispute under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, specifically focusing on the eviction of a tenant for the landlord's need to accommodate his eldest son's proposed grocery business (!) (!) .
The landlord initially failed to establish sufficient need for eviction, but after a remand, the appellate authority found that the need for the eldest son's business was bona fide (!) (!) .
During the pendency of the proceedings, the landlord acquired vacant possession of an adjacent building. The landlord contended that this building was intended for his second son's use, not for the grocery business, and thus, the tenant's claim for protection under the first proviso to S.11(3) was accepted by the appellate authority, leading to an eviction order [15000085430002] (!) .
The tenant argued that the landlord could not escape the protections provided by the first proviso simply by claiming the need for another building, especially when the landlord had a building in his possession. The court emphasized that the first proviso requires special reasons to justify eviction despite the landlord's possession of another building (!) (!) .
The first proviso to S.11(3) stipulates that eviction should not be ordered if the landlord has another building in his possession in the same area unless there are special reasons justifying such eviction (!) .
The court explained that the purpose of the proviso is to prevent landlords from evicting tenants without genuine need when they possess alternative suitable premises, unless specific exceptional reasons are established (!) (!) .
The burden of proof initially lies on the tenant to show the landlord's possession of another building. Once established, the landlord must then prove the existence of special reasons to justify eviction (!) [15000085430005].
Examples of potential special reasons include the building's inadequate condition, the need to start a different trade, or the necessity for family members to establish separate premises. However, mere claims without supporting evidence are insufficient (!) (!) .
In this case, the court found that the reasons provided by the landlord—such as the building's structural deficiencies or the intended use by the second son—were not sufficient or did not qualify as special reasons. The landlord's failure to produce further evidence upon remand was also noted [15000085430007][15000085430008].
The court concluded that the eviction order was unjustified under the first proviso, set aside the appellate authority's order, and disposed of the revision accordingly. The court emphasized that the landlord had the opportunity to adduce additional evidence but did not do so, and was free to initiate a new proceeding based on a bona fide need of the second son if necessary [15000085430008] (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or assistance.
Thomas, J.
The sole question which survives now, after the lapse of nearly a decade since the landlord and the tenant have forked each other with the rent control proceedings, is whether the tenant can be allowed to seek protection envisaged in the first proviso to S.11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short 'the act).
2. For the purpose of this revision there is no need to recite the entire facts or the history of this litigation. So we are mentioning only those facts barely necessary for the purpose of deciding the question. Eviction was applied for on the ground that landlord's eldest son Jayarajan was in need of starting a business in the building. Initially the tenant succeeded as the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority have concurrently held that the landlord failed to make out the need. This was on the premise that the landlord did not state the exact nature of the business his son had in contemplation. But, in a previous revision this court, following the decision of a Division Bench in Narayani v. District Judge (1991(1) KLT 646) remanded the case to the Appellate Authority for deciding the appeal afresh. Appellate Authority found after remand that the landlord's need to accommodate his eldest son Jayarajan' s proposed grocery business is bona fide.
3. But during the pendency of the rent control proceedings a development took place. Landlord got vacant possession of another building which is situated adjacent to the petition schedule building. On its basis the tenant advanced a contention in the appeal, after remand, that he is entitled to protection from eviction as envisaged in the first proviso to S.11(3) of the Act. The landlord admitted that he got vacant possession of that oilier building (which is the next door room in the same edifice). However, he contended that the said room is set apart for his second son to start a flour mill and that the building is not useful as a grocery shop.
4. Appellate Authority accepted the stand of the landlord and hence passed order of eviction which is now impugned in this revision. Learned counsel for the tenant contended that no landlord can wriggle out from the first proviso to S.11(3) of the Act by pleading excuses for not using the building in his possession.
5. The first proviso to S.11(3) of the Act reads thus:
"Provided that the Rent Control Court shall not give any such direction if the landlord has another building of his own in his possession in the same city, town or village except where the Rent Control Court is satisfied that for special reasons, in any particular case it will be just and proper to do so".
Section 11(3) recognises the principle that in spite of the restrictions imposed against eviction of the tenant the genuine need of the landlord must supercede even the tenant's need. But through the three provisos to the sub-section the legislature provided certain inbuilt safeguards for tenants against unbridled use of the ground by their landlords. The second proviso is embodied to keep even the genuine need of the landlord (to have vacant possession of the building ) at bay vis-a-vis the tenant's need, if the source of livelihood of the tenant would be at peril as a consequence of eviction. The second proviso warrants consideration only after the landlord succeeds in establishing that his need is bona fide. Otherwise, court is not required to proceed to the second proviso at all. But the first proviso is different. Tt embodies a wholesome principle having a perceptible bearing on the core of the ground itself as it also helps the court to decide whether the need expressed by the landlord is bona fide. The idea is simple. When a landlord has one building in his possession, how can he seek the help of the court to evict his tenant of another building on the ground of his own need? The answer is that unless there are special reasons the landlord cannot be helped by the court to evict the tenant. In the absence of
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
