Back
High Court of Kerala
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K. HARILAL
T.K. Sumathi & Others
Versus
Kundantavida Rabia & Others
RCR.No.462 of 2011
Decided on : 13-12-2011
Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 - Section 11(3) - Unsuccessful tenants before courts below have come up in revision challenging the judgment in R.C.A. passed by Rent Control Appellate Authority - Petition was filed under S.11(3) of Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act - Landlord died during pendency of proceedings in Court of Rent Controller - Legal representatives got impleaded in petition and supplemental amendments were made in petition - Held, Limited jurisdiction under S.20 of the Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1968, question is whether there is any illegality, irregularity or impropriety in findings of court below - Court is of view that there is no irregularity, or illegality or impropriety in findings of court below and Court is satisfied with concurrent findings of courts below - Revision Dismissed
The tenants filed a revision petition challenging the Rent Control Appellate Authority's judgment allowing eviction under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, for the landlord's bona fide need to occupy the premises for a stationery business.[15000246930001] The original landlord, who had returned from employment abroad due to health issues and lacked income, passed away during Rent Controller proceedings; legal representatives were impleaded, and the petition was amended to affirm the continuing need, now to be managed by the son-in-law of one legal representative for family livelihood.[15000246930001][15000246930002] The tenants countered that the need was not genuine, they depended on the business income, no suitable alternatives existed locally, and the landlord's death extinguished the need, requiring a fresh petition.[15000246930002] Evidence included PW1 (landlord's wife) and PW2 (son-in-law) affirming the need, with documents marked.[15000246930003] Courts below found the need bona fide and continuing post-death, with no suitable alternatives for the tenant (a pensioner whose son ran the business yielding minimal net income after expenses, and who made no sincere search for alternatives).[15000246930004][15000246930009][15000246930010][15000246930011] The revision court held that under Section 11(3), a landlord may seek eviction for own occupation or that of dependent family members; bona fide need survives the landlord's death before eviction order if it continues for such family members, allowing legal representatives to proceed via amendments, subject to case-specific facts. (!) [15000246930005][15000246930006][15000246930007] "Dependent family member" depends on relationships and circumstances, pragmatically assessed; here, evidence supported PW2's role.[15000246930008][15000246930009] The landlord had no other vacant suitable premises, and the tenant failed to prove hardship under the second proviso (e.g., high deposits insufficient).[15000246930010][15000246930011] No illegality, irregularity, or impropriety in lower courts' concurrent findings under Section 20; revision dismissed.[15000246930012] (!)
HARILAL, J.
1. The unsuccessful tenants before the courts below have come up in revision challenging the judgment in RCA No.6/2003 passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority (the Additional District Judge, Thalassery). The petition was filed under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The landlord died during the pendency of the proceedings in the Court of the Rent Controller. The legal representatives got impleaded in the petition and supplemental amendments were made in the petition.
2. The respondent/original landlord who had been working in Saudi Arabia and was constrained to give up his job due to heath problem is now living without any kind of job or income to meet livelihood for himself and his family. The need alleged in the petition was for conducting a stationery business in the petition schedule building to eke out livelihood for himself and his family. In the petition, it is alleged that the income derived from the business carrying on in the petition schedule shop room is not the only source of income of the tenants/revision petitioners for their livelihood and suitable buildings are available in the locality to shift the business. After the death of the original landlord supplemental petitioners have been impleaded and sufficient amendments were made in the rent control petition. They contended that by the death of the original landlord, they are put to impecuniousness and hence the members of the family decided to start the business which their deceased father has already desired to start in the management of Latheef, the husband of the 3rd suppl. petitioner. The said Latheef is ready and willing to manage the stationery business for and on behalf of the other legal representatives of the original deceased landlord. Thus, after the death of the landlord sufficient pleadings were incorporated in the petitions to show that the need already alleged in the petition is continuing.
3. The revision petitioner/tenant entered appearance and filed a counter contending that the need projected in the petition is only a ruse to evict him and no other buildings are available in the locality to shift the business. Further contended that he is depending for his livelihood mainly on the income from the business carried on in the petition schedule building. In the additional counter, the revision petitioner/tenant further contended that by the death of the original landlord bona fide need stated in then petition ceased to exist and legal representatives of the deceased cannot prosecute the petition on the same ground. According to the tenant, the remedy available to the petitioner is to file a fresh petition advancing the bona fide need of the legal representatives, if any.
4. On the basis of the rival contentions PWs1 and 2 were examined and Ext.A1 to A11 were marked for the petitioner and RW1 was examined and Exts.B1 to 3 were marked for the tenant.
5. Sri.K.V.Sohan, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner contended that the impugned judgment is vitiated by illegality, irregularity and impropriety. The court below committed illegality in finding that the need raised by the landlord is genuine and bona fide. The learned counsel further contended that the court below committed illegality in finding that alternate buildings are available in the locality to shift the business of the tenant. The present need is for the occupation of the son in law of the landlord to conduct the business and there is no evidence to show that the son-in-law is a dependant of the original landlord or supplemental landlords. It is further contended that by the death of the original landlord bona fide need ends there and the petition was liable to be dismissed.
6. We have given our anxious considerations to the argument advanced by Sri.K.V. Sohan. On an analysis of the pleadings, it could be seen that after the death of the original landlord, the legal heirs were impleaded and sufficient a
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
