Point of Law: It was observed that 'as a general rule the only cases in which decisions should be held to have been given per incuriam are those of decisions given in ignorance or forgetfulness of some inconsistent statutory provision or of some authority binding on the court concerned.'

ORDER :

The respondent-landlord filed R.C.P.No.19 of 2016 before the Rent Control Court (Munsiff), Kodungallur for eviction of the revision petitioners-tenants under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The R.C.P. was allowed. An appeal was filed by the petitioners as R.C.A.No.11 of 2018 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Additional District Judge), Irinajalakuda under Section 18(1)(b) of the Act and that ended in dismissal. The petitioners challenge the said judgment as well as the order of the Rent Control Court in this revision petition filed under Section 20 of the Act.

2. The respondent and his brother Deepak Ganesh are the owners of the petition schedule building. They let out it to the petitioners on a monthly rent of Rs.45,000/- on 01.12.2009. The respondent, who was working abroad, has come back and he wants to start an automobile business in the petition schedule building. His brother Deepak Ganesh has consented for the same. Hence, he demanded vacant possession of the building on the ground of bonafide need.

3. The petitioners resisted the petition contending as follows; The respondent as well as his brother are working abroad at Abudhabi. They have no intention to start an automobile business as claimed. The petitioners put up constructions of substantial nature and installed machinery and related amenities with the knowledge of the landlords spending more than one crore rupees, since the lease was for a period of 15 years. The attempt of the respondent now to evict the petitioners is with the object of helping someone else and also to garner the benefits on account of the proposed acquisition of a part of the property. Even he tried to forcibly evict the petitioners, constraining the petitioners to file O.S.No.1585 of 2016 seeking an injunction. The petitioners are conducting a show room and authorised service centre of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. and in the event of eviction now, they would be put to much loss and inconvenience. Without junction of the other co owner, the respondent has no right to claim eviction.

4. The Rent Control Court after considering the evidence on either side ordered eviction. The Appellate Authority by judgment dated 27.02.2021 confirmed the order of eviction. In this revision petition, the petitioners would contend that both the authorities below totally erred in ordering eviction inasmuch as the other co-owner did not join as a petitioner, the need urged was not bonafide for more than one reason and the plea for eviction was barred owing to the provisions of Section 11(9) of the Act.

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and also the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners questions maintainability of the petition for eviction on two grounds; (i) the petitioners have protection from eviction for a period of 15 years from the date of creation of tenancy, which was on 09.09.2009, under the provisions of Section 11(9) of the Act and, (ii) the ground under Section 11(3) of the Act cannot be availed by a co-owner without junction of other co-owners, as he cannot exclude the other co-owners from possession.

7. The petitioners contended that the lease was for a period of 15 years and therefore the action for eviction on the ground of bonafide need was premature and not maintainable. They produced the rent agreement before the Rent Control Court to prove the term of the tenancy. It was not admitted in evidence since it was unregistered and insufficiently stamped. The Rent Control Court as well as the Appellate Authority did not accept the contention of the petitioners that they are entitled to get protection of Section 11(9) of the Act.

8. The learned Counsel for the petitioners conceded that the period of lease having been mentioned as 15 years, registration of the document is mandatory in view of the provisions of Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and Section 17 of the R