A. K. JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, MOHAMMED NIAS C. P.
P. M. Joseph, S/o. Mathai – Appellant
Versus
P. C. Suresh, S/o. Chellappanachari – Respondent
ORDER :
(Mohammed Nias C.P., J.)
1. The tenant-respondent in RC(OP) No.4/2014, on the file of the Rent Control Court, Ettumanoor, has filed this revision aggrieved by the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority-IV, Kottayam, dismissing the appeal, RCA No.40/2016, that challenged the order of eviction under Sections 11(2) (b), 11(3) and 11(8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short, 'Act').
2. The respondents/landlords, contended that the petition scheduled shop room was obtained by them by virtue of sale deed No.1514/2011 of Ettumanoor SRO. The tenant took the petition scheduled room on lease from its prior owner, wherein he is conducting a flower business. The room on the southern side of the petition scheduled room was taken on rent by the father of the landlords from the previous owners and was conducting a jewellery business therein. While so, the landlords herein purchased the entire building including the petition schedule room from its owners. It was contended that the rent at the rate of Rs.1,800/- per month had been paid upto April 2011 and the tenant defaulted on payment of the rent from May 2011.
3. The landlords also contended that th
Section 11(8) of Act reads as a landlord who is occupying only a part of a building, may apply to Rent Control Court for an order directing any tenant occupying whole or any portion of remaining part....
A landlord’s bonafide requirement for premises under Section 11(3) takes precedence over a tenant’s claims of alternative accommodations.
Landlords' bonafide need for eviction under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965 must be supported by evidence of genuine intent and financial capability.
The court reaffirmed that grounds for eviction can be treated independently yet jointly valid in light of established facts, clarifying procedural interpretations of relevant sections in tenancy law.
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....
For a tenant to claim protection under Sec. 11 (3) of the Act, they must substantiate dependency on rental income and show lack of alternative premises, which they failed to do.
Landlords can evict tenants who cease occupancy without reasonable cause for over six months under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act.
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.
The tenant must prove dependency on the rent-controlled property to gain protection under the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act against eviction for arrears and bona fide need of landlords.
The tenant's burden to prove alternative vacant premises exists necessitates the landlord to present special reasons for non-occupation, as per the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965....
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.