Back
2022 Supreme(Ker) 1086
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, JJ.
M.P. Suresh Babu, S/o. Kunjikannan – Petitioner
Versus
Sobha Rajan, W/o. Late Rajan – Respondent
RCREV. No. 189 Of 2021
Decided On : 09-11-2022
For the Petitioner: Srinath Girish, P. Jeril Babu.
For the Respondent: P.B. Krishnan, P.B. Subramanyan, Sabu George, Manu Vyasan Peter.
Point of Law: "Tenant" means any person by whom or on whose account rent is payable for a buildings.
Headnote:
Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act,1965 - Section 11(17), (3), 2(6), 20 - Order of eviction - Claim permanent tenancy - Petitioner challenging concurrent finding of order of eviction - Whether protection under Section 11(17) of Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act,1965 is available to legal heirs of a tenant, who was in continuous occupation of building or not – Tenant is in possession of other building, which can be used for his business - Para 14.
Finding of the Court: In order to claim permanent tenancy under Section 11(17), occupation of original tenant should be continuous and on death of original tenant, legal heir of tenant, cannot claim protection under Section 11(17) of Act - Tenant failed to adduce evidence to prove that he is mainly depending for his livelihood on income derived from business carried on in petition schedule shop rooms and also failed to prove that no other building or shop room is available in locality for him to carry on business – Court hold that findings rendered by Rent Control Court and Rent Control Appellate Authority ordering eviction under Section 11(3) of Act are sustainable in law and court do not find any reason to interfere with that finding.
Result: Revision dismissed.
ORDER :
[Shoba Annamma Eapen. J.]
1. The main issue that arises for consideration in this Rent Control Revision is as to whether protection under Section 11(17) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act,1965 (hereinafter referred to for short as 'the Act') is available to the legal heirs of a tenant, who was in continuous occupation of the building prior to 1-4-1940 or not.
2. This Rent Control Revision is filed by the revision petitioner/tenant challenging the concurrent finding of order of eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act on the bona fide need of the son of the landlady. The respondent/landlady is the owner of a building consisting of a room on the ground floor and a room on the upstairs. The tenant is in occupation of the petition schedule premises under a registered kychit No. 229/1981 of SRO, Vatakara executed by him in favour of the erstwhile owner viz., Narayani, who is the mother of the landlady. The tenant paid the rent up to December 2015 to Narayani and on her death, the petition schedule premises devolved upon the respondent here-in-landlady as per the terms of the registered Will executed by Narayani. Though notice was issued by the landlady, the rent was kept in arrears from January 2016. On the death of the husband of the landlady, the landlady wanted her son Rimeesh Rajan, who holds Masters Degree in Engineering in Computer Sciences, working in UAE for nine years to come and stay with the landlady.
3. The landlady and her children have inherited a building consisting of seven rooms from her husband. Six among those rooms are occupied by tenants and one room bearing door No.30/382 in the said building was left unoccupied due to the dilapidated condition of the room. Room No.30/382, lying vacant is a small room and was not suitable for starting sales of the computer peripherals and computer service centre. The total rent income of the landlady and her children from the said building is Rs.5,200/- per month. In order to raise her income, the petitioner's son Sri.Rimeesh Rajan decided to come back and settle in his home town and the petitioner and her son had a bona fide need to start business dealing in Computer systems, computer hardware, peripherals and accessories and a computer service centre in the petition schedule premises. According to the landlady, the room on the ground floor is required for sales and the room on the upstairs is required for the service centre. It is also submitted that several shop rooms are available in the locality for the tenant to relocate his business and the tenant is not depending on the income from the petition schedule premises for his livelihood.
4. Per contra, the revision petitioner-tenant contended that the rent paid by the tenant was not accepted by the landlady and hence the amount was sent through money order, which was also not accepted. It is also contended by the revision petitioner that the landlady has many landed properties and cash deposits and there is no necessity for the landlady to start business to supplement her income and shop room No.30/382 is in the ownership of Rimeesh Rajan and is lying vacant and fit for his proposed business. It was further contended that the tenant's father started his tenancy in the year 1938 onwards and the tenant has permanent tenancy over the petition schedule building. The shop room was destructed by fire in the year 1992 and the tenant repaired the shop room by spending Rs.6 lakh. It was further contended that there was no suitable room in the locality for him to shift his business and that he is depending on the petition schedule building for his livelihood.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant and the learned counsel for the respondent/landlady.
6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner mainly submitted that the bona fide need put forth by the landlady is a ruse to evict him from the petition schedule building. It is also submitted that she is immensely rich and has sufficie
