IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.B.Suresh Kumar, C.S.Sudha, JJ.
Irvin John Jayarajan S/o. Karunakaran - Appellant
Vs.
Madhavi Alias Narayani Amma, W/o. Late Anandan Nair - Respondent
Rent Control Revision No.22 of 2010
Decided On : 07-10-2022
Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 - Sections 11(2)(b), 11(3), 20, 24 - Seek eviction - Whether finding of Rent Control Court that there is arrears of rent is correct - Whether construction of building for whose need tenanted premises was sought to be evicted would, in any manner, affect right of landlords to seek eviction of the tenant under Section 11(3) of Act - Section 24 of Act provides categorically that Rent Control Court shall, as far as may be practicable, pass final orders in any proceedings before it, within four months from date of appearance of parties. (Para 15).
Findings of the Court: There is no impediment for a landlord who is residing in a smaller premises owned by him in seeking eviction of tenant in a larger premises owned by him, if he intends to reside in the larger premises upon eviction of the tenant. In other words, even if the building presently occupied was in existence at time of institution of the petition for eviction, there would not have been any impediment in law for landlords in seeking eviction, as the convenience of landlords would certainly be a special reason falling within scope of the first proviso to Section 11(3) of Act. Court are, in complete agreement with the view taken by Appellate Authority.
Result: Revision petition dismissed.
ORDER :
P.B.Suresh Kumar, J.
The tenant in a proceedings for eviction under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (the Act), is the petitioner in this revision petition instituted under Section 20 of the Act. The respondents are the landlords in the proceedings.
2. The subject matter of the proceedings is a residential premises belonging to the landlords which was let out to the tenant. The eviction of the tenant was sought under the provisions aforesaid alleging that the rent of the premises is in arrears from February 1993 and that the premises is required for the residence of the fifth petitioner, Hariram and his family who is residing in the family house of the landlords with others. The tenant objected the claim of the landlords for eviction under Section 11 (3) of the Act on the ground that Hariram and his family own a separate building for their residence and the claim is therefore not bona fide. The Rent Control Court accepted the claim of the landlords holding that the rent of the premises is in arrears since February 1993 and that Hariram and his family need bona fide the premises for their residence. Consequently, the petition for eviction was allowed both under Sections 11(2)(b) as also 11(3) of the Act. In the matter of accepting the claim under Section 11 (3) of the Act, the Rent Control Court found that the tenant has not established that Hariram and his family own any other building which could be used for their residence. In appeal, the Appellate Authority affirmed the decision of the Rent Control Court.
3. The decision of the Appellate Authority was however challenged by the tenant before this Court in R.C.R. No.538 of 2005 mainly on grounds that there is no arrears of rent inasmuch as he has already deposited the arrears and that I.A.No.1761 of 1998 filed by him before the Appellate Authority to accept in evidence the certified copy of the property tax assessment register in respect of a building owned by Hariram has been improperly rejected by the Appellate Authority.
4. This Court did not go into the question as to whether the finding of the Rent Control Court that there is arrears of rent is correct. Instead, this Court took the view that the order of eviction under Section 11(2)(b) being a tentative one, the same can be confirmed by granting to the tenant a month's time for depositing the arrears, if any, and an opportunity to prefer an application under Section 11(2)(c) to vacate the order of eviction under Section 11(2)(b), and disposed of the claim under Section 11(2)(b) accordingly. As far as the claim under Section 11(3) is concerned, this Court took the view that in the light of the provisions contained in Sections 18(3) and 23 of the Act, the Appellate Authority ought to have accepted the additional evidence produced by the tenant. Even though it was contended by the landlords that since the eviction proceedings instituted in the year 1993 was dragged indefinitely by the tenant, Hariram who was in dire need of a building for his own occupation had no option but to put up another building for his residence near his family house and that the said subsequent event does not in any manner affect the right of the landlords to seek eviction of the tenant from the premises under Section 11(3) and further that Hariram would certainly occupy the tenanted premises upon getting eviction, this Court took the view that insofar as I.A.No.1761 of 1998 was dismissed, the matter needs to be reconsidered by the Appellate Authority. Consequently, the matter was remitted for fresh consideration to the Appellate Authority. In terms of the order passed in this regard, this Court directed the Appellate Authority to receive in evidence the certified copy of the property tax assessment register relating to the building bearing door No.9/395A produced by the tenant along with I.A.No.1761 of 1998. This Court also, in terms of the said order, permitted the landlords to file an affid
Courts have a duty to ensure that there is no judicial contribution to delay.
Point of Law - Appellate Authority held that the finding of the Rent Control Court that the rent agreed by the landlord and tenant is by mutual consent cannot be sustained
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....
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....
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....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.