2018 Supreme(Ker) 1556

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, MARY JOSEPH, JJ.
V.P. Pradeep - Appellant
Versus
P.N. Pradeep - Respondent
R.C. Rev. Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 61, 62 of 2016 and 351 of 2015
Decided On : 03-12-2018

Bona fide need for eviction under rent control laws

Headnote:

JUDGMENT : Mary Joseph, J. The Rent Control Revisions numbered as R.C.R. Nos.1 to 9/2016 have been preferred by the common landlord, against the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thrissur in RCA Nos. 60/2010, 65/2010, 63/2010, 56/2010, 62/2010, 59/2010, 58/2010 and 61/2010 respectively reversing the order of eviction dated 11.08.2010 passed by the Rent Control Court, Kodungallur in Rent Control Petitions numbered as 4 and 6 to 13 of 2008. Rent Control Revisions numbered as 61/2016, 62/2016 and 351/2015 have been preferred by the tenants against the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority in RCA Nos.58/2010, 59/2010 and 62/2010 respectively, confirming the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court, Kodungalloor in RCP Nos.7/2008, 13/2008 and 10/2008 under Sections 11(4)(v) ad 11 (4) (iii) of the Act. 2. Appeals preferred as RCA Nos. 56/2010, 57/2010, 60/2010, 61/2010, 63/2010 and 65/2010 were allowed and thereby RCP Nos. 11/2008, 12/2008, 6/2008, 8/2008, 9/2008 and 4/2008 respectively were dismissed. Appeals preferred as R.C.A Nos.58/2010, 59/2010 and 62/2010 were partly allowed and thereby the orders of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court under Section 11(3) of the Act in R.C.P. Nos.7/2008, 13/2008 and 10/2008 were reversed. The order of eviction passed in RCP Nos.7/2008 and 10/2008 under Section 11(4) (iii) of the Act was maintained in RCA No.58/2010 and 59/2010. The order of eviction passed in RCP No.13/2008 under Section 11(4)(v) of the Act was confirmed in RCA No.62/2010 3. The petitioners who have filed the rent control petitions seeking eviction before the Rent Control Court, Kodungallur are none other than a common landlord who is the owner of a shopping complex building which incorporates the tenanted premises in respect of which eviction was sought, under various grounds. 4. The shopping complex is situated in a landed property having an area of 21.75 cents. The residential building of the landlord was also situated in the said property. Three rooms of the shopping complex building and the residential building as such are in the possession of the landlord. 5. The landlord was a bank employee, who had taken voluntary retirement in January, 2001. He has two male children, who are degree holders, but were not settled. 3 rooms in the shopping complex building of which the tenanted premises sought to be evicted formed parts are already in the possession of the landlord. A residential building is situated on the western side of the shopping complex. Some vacant space is also available on the northern side of the residential building. The shopping complex has NH-17 frontage and is situated on the eastern extremity of the entire building having a total extent of 21% cents. The building is also situated in a commercial area. The landlord who had cherished the desire to commence a hotel-lodging cum boarding business since the date of his voluntary retirement, found the property where the shopping complex is situated ideal for the purpose and accordingly undertook preliminary measures towards the proposed business. He procured a plan for the proposed construction of the building. The respondents are financially sound with landed property and other assets. They are totally depending on the income from the business conducted in the rooms in the building belonging to the petitioner for their livelihood. Rooms are available in the building in the possession of the petitioner. The petitioner being in bonafide need of the space to construct the new building to accommodate the proposed business had issued notice to the respondents to surrender vacant possession of the rooms. The respondents replied denying availability of other rooms in the locality. Thereupon petitions seeking eviction have been preferred mainly on the ground of bonafide need under Section 11(3), arrears of rent under Section 11(2) (b), additional accommodation under Section 11(8), subletting under Section 11(4)(i), acquisition of another building by the tenant under Section 11(4)(iii) and cessation of occupation under Section 11(4) (v) of the Act. 6. The tenant in RCP No.6/2008 was sought to be evicted under Sections 11(3), 11(8) and 11(2)(b) of the Act. The tenant in RCP No.4/2008 was sought to be evicted under Sections 11(3) and 11(8) of the Act.

Fact of the Case:

The landlord, who owned a shopping complex building, filed rent control petitions seeking eviction of tenants from various tenanted premises within the building. The landlord claimed bona fide need to construct a new building to start a hotel-lodging cum boarding business. The tenants resisted the eviction, contending that the landlord's need was not genuine and that they had alternative accommodation available. The Rent Control Court passed an order of eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act in all the Rent Control Petitions. However, the Rent Control Appellate Authority reversed the order of eviction under Section 11(3) and confirmed the orders of eviction passed under Section 11(4)(iii) and 11(4)(v) of the Act. The landlord filed revision petitions challenging the reversal of the eviction order under Section 11(3), while the tenants filed revision petitions challenging the confirmation of eviction orders under Section 11(4)(iii) and 11(4)(v).

Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the Rent Control Appellate Authority erred in reversing the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court under Section 11(3) of the Act. The Court found that the landlord had established a bona fide need for the tenanted premises to construct a new building for his proposed business. The Court also found that the tenants had failed to establish the availability of alternative accommodation or that they had acquired another building. The Court confirmed the concurrent findings of the authorities below regarding acquisition of building by the tenant and cessation of occupation of the tenanted premises and dismissed the revision petitions filed by the tenants. The Court allowed the revision petitions filed by the landlord and restored the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court under Section 11(3) of the Act.

Issues: 1. Whether the landlord had established a bona fide need for the tenanted premises to construct a new building for his proposed business? 2. Whether the tenants had established the availability of alternative accommodation or that they had acquired another building?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. To establish a bona fide need for the tenanted premises, the landlord must show that he has a genuine and reasonable need for the premises for his own use or for the use of his family members, and that he does not have any other suitable accommodation available. 2. The tenants can resist eviction by showing that they have alternative accommodation available or that they have acquired another building.

Final Decision: The High Court allowed the revision petitions filed by the landlord and restored the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court under Section 11(3) of the Act. The Court dismissed the revision petitions filed by the tenants.