IMPORTANT POINTS
A landlord alone can claim eviction on the ground of bonafide need of a building for his own occupation. Since the individual partner cannot be regarded as landlord in respect of a building owned by a firm, the provision does not apply in such a case. Corollary is that in such a situation Section 11(3) of the Act can be invoked by a firm only when the firm itself bonafide needs to occupy the tenanted premises-The claim in R.C.P.No.21 of 2015 raised by the respondents is unsustainable in law, even if it is established that Smt. Hajira is a partner of the 1st respondent firm.

ORDER :

Hariprasad, J.

In the captioned cases, common respondents figure in the party array. 1st respondent is an unregistered partnership firm represented by its managing partners. Managing partners of the 1st respondent firm are arrayed as respondents 2 and 3 individually too. They together filed two eviction petitions, against two tenants occupying two separate rooms in a larger building, claimed to be belonging to the 1st respondent partnership firm, on the ground that the tenants kept rent in arrears and also the respondents bonafide needed vacant possession of the rooms to fulfill the requirement of two partners, by invoking Sections 11(2) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (in short, "the Act"). Revision petitioners are the tenants who lost in the Rent Control Court as well as in the Appellate Authority where bonafide need was concurrently found in favour of the respondents. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners that the eviction orders in both cases under Section 11(2)(b) of the Act, for keeping rent in arrears, were vacated by invoking Section 11(2)(c) by depositing the quantified arrears of rent. In both these revisions, therefore, the ground of eviction surviving for consideration is under Section 11(3) of the Act.

2. It is to be noticed that bonafide need set up for eviction of the tenant in R.C.P.No.21 of 2015 before the Rent Control Court, Kasargod is for own occupation of Smt.Hajira, who is said to be a sleeping partner in the unregistered firm, for starting a tailoring shop. Tenant has disputed bonafides of the need by contending that averments in the petition are machinations to unjustly evict him. Against the concurrent findings in the above Rent Control Petition, R.C.R.No.228 of 2018 has been filed.

3. Respondents claimed eviction in R.C.P.No.17 of 2016 against another tenant under the aforementioned ground contending that they require the building for bonafide occupation of Smt.Jameela, who allegedly is a partner of the firm, for starting a fancy articles store. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners that from the evidence adduced in the case, it has been revealed that Jameela was not a partner of the firm, but a legal heir of a deceased partner. Here also the tenant disputed genuineness of the bonafide need contending that it is only a stratagem to send him out of the tenanted premises without any lawful reason.

4. The revision petitioners not only disputed bonafides of the need set up in the eviction petitions, but contended that they are entitled to get the protection of the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. After considering the evidence, the courts below granted eviction repelling the contentions of the revision petitioners.

5. Heard Sri.C.R.Syam Kumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Sri.Jawahar Jose, learned counsel for the respondents.

6. In both cases, the revision petitioners challenge correctness of the eviction order under Section 11(3) of the Act contending that the courts below erred seriously in assessing bonafides of the need put forward by the respondents. Apart from that, the revision petitioner in R.C.R.No.228 of 2018 urged a contention that when the landlord is a partnership firm, individual need of a partner, especially that of a sleeping partner, to start an independent business will not come within the ambit of bonafide need under Section 11(3) of the Act. It is also contended that the courts below ought to have appreciated the fact that Section 11(3) of the Act would apply only if the premises are needed for the business of the firm. Yet another contention is that the expressions “own occupation” or “for occupation of any member of the family dependent on him” under Section 11(3) of the Act will not embrace a claim to use the building by one of the partners for his or her exclusive or individual purpose.

7. In R.C.R.No.83 of 2019, apart from the challenge against the find