The judgment established that a landlord must prove eviction grounds and adhere to the statutory obligations, including the prohibition on eviction before the lease period's expiry under Section 11(9) of the Act.

ORDER :

Anilkumar, J.

The dismissal of an eviction petition filed under Sections 11(3) and 11(2) (b) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 [for short, the 'Act'] by the Rent Control Appellate Authority reversing the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court is challenged by the landlord in this revision.

2. The revision petitioner is a Gulf returnee. He let out the petition schedule shop room to the respondent-tenant for monthly rent on 18.08.2009 for a period of 11 months. The tenant is conducting a stationery business in the shop room. The revision petitioner contended in the eviction petition that, he was jobless after his return from Gulf and, therefore, bona fide needed the shop room for carrying on a business in stationery-cum-gift shop. He further alleged that the tenant paid rent only upto the month of December, 2009 and kept the rent for subsequent months in arrears. The eviction petition was filed on 08.06.2010 before the expiry of period of lease agreed between parties.

3. The rent control court ordered eviction accepting both the grounds which was reversed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority in R.C.A.No.54/2011. According to the Rent Control Appellate Authority, the landlord failed to prove default of payment of rent during the relevant period and also held that the need projected by the landlord was not proved to be bona fide.

4. Besides the correctness as to the factual findings entered into under Section 11(3) and 11(2)(b) of the Act by the Appellate Authority, a legal question also arises in this proceedings as to the maintainability of eviction petition in view of the legal bar under Section 11(9) of the Act, which prohibits the landlord from instituting proceedings before the expiry of the period provided in the lease agreement.

5. We heard the learned counsel appearing on either side. We are satisfied from the evidence on record that the respondent paid the rent for the relevant period without committing any default and the revision petitioner failed to prove the ground of eviction under Section 11(2)(b) of the Act. The factual finding entered into by the Appellate Authority in this respect, therefore, does not call for any interference.

6. The factual finding of the Appellate Authority rejecting eviction on the ground of bona fide need for own occupation is seriously assailed by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. On the other hand, the impugned order is sought to be sustained by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

7. The fact that the revision petitioner is a Gulf returnee and jobless is not a fact disputed. It has been proved by the revision petitioner and accepted by both the courts below that the landlord has no suitable shop room in his possession other than the petition schedule room for starting his proposed business.

8. The contention of the respondent is that the need projected by the revision petitioner is not genuine and it is a contrivance devised for eviction. It is specifically contended that intention of the revision petitioner is to evict the respondent by hook or by crook and to sell the shop room for a fanciful price.

9. The revision petitioner was jobless when he leased out the vacant petition schedule shop room to the tenant-respondent on 18.08.2009. He created lease for a period of 11 months which, in the normal course, should continue upto 18.07.2010. A general inference that could be drawn from the above conduct of the landlord is that he did not anticipate the idea or need for occupying the shop room during the currency of lease period. This is one of the circumstances, which would belie the alleged bona fides of the need set up by the landlord.

10. It is an admitted fact that after hardly three months since the commencement of tenancy, the revision petitioner entered into an agreement for sale of petition schedule shop room with the respondent's father and received advance sale price. The respondent's father filed O.S.No.403/2010 for