Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JJ.
C.P.Aboobacker, S/o.Muhammed – Appellant
Versus
K.T.Sreelatha Nambiar, W/o.K.T.R.Nambiar – Respondent
R.C.Rev.No. 122 to 124, 127 of 2020
Decided on : 03-08-2022
Rent Control Revisions - Eviction under Sections 11(3) and 11(4)(iv) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 - Sections 11(3), 11(4)(iv), 20 - The court discussed the need for eviction under Sections 11(3) and 11(4)(iv) of the Act, emphasizing the bona fide requirement, burden of proof, and the limitations of revisional jurisdiction under Section 20.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent sought eviction of the tenants under Sections 11(3) and 11(4)(iv) of the Act, claiming the need to demolish the existing building and construct a new residential-cum-commercial complex for the bona fide need of her husband. The tenants contested, arguing that the existing building did not require reconstruction and that the respondent had other properties suitable for the proposed purpose.
Finding of the Court:
The Rent Control Court ordered eviction, finding the respondent's need to be bona fide and that the tenants were not entitled to the benefit of the second proviso to Section 11(3). The Appellate Authority concurred with these findings.
Issues: The main issues were the bona fide need for eviction under Sections 11(3) and 11(4)(iv) of the Act, the burden of proof on the tenants, and the scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 20.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for a bona fide requirement for eviction, the burden of proof on the tenants to establish their dependence on the income derived from the business and the non-availability of suitable alternative premises, and the limitations of revisional jurisdiction under Section 20.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petitions, upholding the eviction order, and granted six months' time for the tenants to surrender vacant possession of the premises, subject to specified conditions.
ORDER :
Ajithkumar, J.
Common are the issues involved and hence these rent control revisions are disposed of by this common order. The rent control revisions are filed by the respective tenants against common judgment dated 19.03.2020 in R.C.A.Nos.95, 98, 101 and 111 of 2018 on the file of the Rent control Appellate Authority (Additional District Judge–II), Thalassery. The respondent filed R.C.P.Nos.12, 13, 14 and 15 along with two other petitions seeking eviction of the tenants from the respective petition schedule shop rooms, which are part of a larger building belonging to the respondent. Eviction was sought under Sections 11(3) and 11(4)(iv) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The order of eviction granted by the Rent Control Court as per the common order dated 11.07.2018 which stands confirmed by the common judgment of the Appellate Authority dated 19.03.2020 is challenged in these revisions filed under Section 20 of the Act.
2. These revision petitions were admitted on 14.01.2021. The order of eviction was stayed initially for a period of one month. The order of stay has been extended from time to time and is still in force.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
4. In the rent control petitions, the contention of the respondent-landlady was that the petition schedule building belonged to Sreedevi Amma and she leased out the premises to the respondents in the Rent Control Petitions on monthly rent. Sreedevi Amma died and the right of Sreedevi Amma devolved upon the revision petitioner as per a registered Will. After the death of Sreedevi Amma, the petitioners in these revision petitions attorned to the respondent as the landlady. The petition schedule building is old and dilapidated. The respondent intends to construct a residential-cum-commercial complex in the place of the existing building and a plan for the proposed construction is approved by the Municipality. The husband of the respondent is now working as Vice President of ITC at Calcutta. He intends to retire from service, settle down at Thalassery and start professional consultancy services and a coaching centre for Chartered Accountancy students. So, the existing old building has to be demolished and a new residential-cum-commercial building has to be constructed in its place to suit the needs of the husband of the respondent. The second floor of the proposed building is to be used for residential purposes and the first floor is to be used as office room, room for staff, room for conducting classes and room for visitors. The respondent needs to demolish the existing building and construct a new building to suit the bona fide need of her husband. There are other rooms available in the locality for shifting the business now conducted by the petitioners in the petition schedule shop rooms. Moreover, the petitioners are having possession of other rooms for doing the business now conducted in the petition schedule premises. On such grounds, eviction was sought under Sections 11(3) and 11(4)(iv) of the Act.
5. The petitioners admitted the title and tenancy. They contended that there is no serious damage to the existing building and there is no need for reconstruction of the building. The existing building is only 35 years old. A portion of the existing building was acquired by the Government for widening the road. The petitioner had obtained the plan approved by the Municipality before acquisition proceedings. As per the present Building Rules, no residential building or commercial complex could be constructed at the place where the present building is situated after leaving the road margin. No vacant rooms are available in the locality for shifting the business now conducted in the petition schedule building. The petitioners are depending upon the income derived from the business conducted in the petition schedule premises. The respondent has got other buildings of her own a
The judgment emphasizes the importance of establishing a bona fide need for eviction, the burden of proof on tenants, and the limitations of revisional jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Act.
Point of Law : Though the revisional power under Section 20 of the Act may be wider than Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 it cannot be equated even with the second appellate power con....
Point of law :Eviction of tenant - Bona fide need put forward by the landlord by itself is depending upon a contingency, namely, the final outcome of the civil suit mentioned above. Therefore in that....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a landlord's need for eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act must be bona fide, sincere, and honest, and not a mere pretext. The courts inter....
Eviction under Section 11(3) necessitates proving a genuine and bona fide need, distinct from mere whimsy, emphasizing the burden of proof on landlords.
Section 11 of Civil Procedure Code contains comprehensive principles relating to finality of litigation and it lays down the principles of res judicata, which rests on the famous legal maxims Interes....
Landlords must prove bona fide need for eviction; tenants' failure to substantiate claims regarding income and available premises supports eviction orders under the Rent Control Act.
Burden of proof in eviction cases lies with both parties to establish arrears or genuine need.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
