Point of Law: Granting an order of eviction under Section 11(8) of the Act cannot be said to be either perverse or illegal. It cannot also be said that while granting such an order of eviction, the courts below have committed any material irregularity.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner is the respondent-tenant in R.C.P. No. 17 of 2017 on the file of the Rent Control Court (Munsiff), Sulthan Bathery, a petition filed by the respondent herein-landlady seeking eviction of the tenant from the petition schedule shop room, under Sections 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The tenant entered appearance and filed counter statement opposing the order of eviction sought for. After considering the pleadings and evidence on record, the Rent Control Court, by the order dated 15.02.2020 in R.C.P. No. 17 of 2017, ordered eviction of the tenant under Sections 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(8) of the Act, and the tenant was directed to give vacant possession of the petition schedule shop room to the landlady, within the time limit specified in that order. In the said order, it was made clear that the order of eviction granted under Section 11(2)(b) will be vacated, under Section 11(2)(c) of the Act, if the tenant deposits the arrears of rent with interest and cost within a period of one month.

2. Challenging the order of eviction granted by the Rent Control Court, the tenant filed R.C.A. No. 19 of 2020 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Additional District Judge-I), Kalpetta, invoking the provisions under Section 18(1)(b) of the Act. That appeal was allowed in part, by the judgment dated 31.08.2021. The Appellate Authority confirmed the order of eviction granted under Section 11(8) of the Act. However, the order of eviction granted by the Rent Control Court under Section 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act was set aside. Challenging the judgment dated 31.08.2021 of the Appellate Authority in R.C.A. No. 19 of 2020, to the extent of confirming the order of eviction granted by the Rent Control Court under Section 11(8) of the Act, the tenant is before this Court in this revision, invoking the revisional jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Act.

3. On 28.09.2021, when this Rent Control Revision came up for admission, the respondent-landlady entered appearance through counsel. On 01.12.2021, this Court has made it clear that pendency of this Rent Control Revision will not stand in the way of the execution court proceeding with the matter, in accordance with law.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant and also the learned counsel for the respondent-landlady.

5. The issue that arises for consideration in this Rent Control Revision is as to whether any interference is warranted on the order of eviction granted under Section 11(8) of the Act.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant would contend that, while confirming the order of eviction granted by the Rent Control Court under Section 11(8) of the Act, the Rent Control Appellate Authority has not properly appreciated the contention raised by the tenant as to comparative hardship, as contemplated under the first proviso to Section 11(10) of the Act.

7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent-landlady would contend that the Appellate Authority, while confirming the order of eviction granted by the Rent Control Court under Section 11(8) of the Act, dealt with properly the contention raised by the tenant as to comparative hardship, as contemplated under the first proviso to Section 11(10) of the Act. Therefore, the order of eviction granted under Section 11(8) of the Act warrants no interference, in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 20 of the Act.

8. Section 11 of the Act deals with eviction of tenants. As per Section 11(8), a landlord who is occupying only a part of a building may apply to the Rent Control Court for an order directing any tenant occupying the whole or any portion of the remaining part of the building to put the landlord in possession thereof, if he requires additional accommodation for his personal use. Section 11(10) of the Act provides that, claim under sub-section (3), (4), (7) or (8) should be bona fide. As per Section 11(10), the