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.

ORDER :

Sophy Thomas, J.

The revision petitioner, who is the tenant in RCP No.20 of 2013 on the file of Rent Control Court, Irinjalakuda, is before us, invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court, under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

2. The brief facts necessary for the revision could be stated as follows, referring the parties according to their status in the Rent Control Petition.

3. The petitioners/landlords filed RCP No.20 of 2013, for evicting the respondent/tenant under Section 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act. According to the petitioners, the respondent defaulted rent from 04.02.2013 onwards, and moreover, they were in need of the petition schedule room along with adjacent rooms which were also leased out by them, for starting a supermarket cum godown.

4. The respondent/tenant opposed that petition contending that, the rent was never in arrears, and the need projected by them that they wanted to start a supermarket in the rooms including the petition schedule room, was not bonafide. The 1st petitioner is working in a company and petitioners 2 and 3 are doing some business. So, they may not be able to run a supermarket, and moreover, they are financially well off, and so they need not start a new business to make money. The petitioners recently got two rooms, back from the tenants, and if they wanted to start a supermarket, they could very well use those rooms. The respondent/tenant is solely depending on the income derived from the business in the petition schedule room and no suitable rooms are available in that locality to shift her business. So, she prayed for dismissal of the Rent Control Petition.

5. RCP No.20 of 2013 was tried along with connected RCPs filed by the very same landlords, for getting vacant possession of the adjoining tenements, for starting a supermarket.

6. PWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exts.A1 to A32 were marked from the side of the petitioners/landlords and RWs 1 to 5 were examined and Exts.B1 to B6 were marked from the side of the respondent/tenant. Ext.C1 was marked as court exhibit.

7. After evaluating the facts and evidence, the Rent Control Court found that there was no rent arrears but the bonafide need projected by the petitioners is genuine and so eviction was ordered under Section 11(3) of the Act, and the respondent was directed to surrender vacant possession of the schedule room within three months from the date of order.

8. Aggrieved by the order of eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act, the tenant approached the Rent Control Appellate Authority by filing RCA No.97 of 2015, under Section 18 of the Act. The Rent Control Appellate Authority found that, the need of the petitioners to start a supermarket in the rooms including the petition schedule room was bonafide, and hence the appeal was dismissed confirming the order of the Rent Controller, Irinjalakuda, and the respondent/tenant was granted six months time to vacate the premises, subject to filing of an affidavit undertaking to vacate the premises, within the said period. Now the tenant is impugning the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, in this revision.

9. Heard learned counsel Sri.B.S Swathikumar, appearing for the revision petitioner/tenant and learned counsel Sri.P.Ramakrishnan, appearing for the respondents/landlords.

10. Let us reanalyse the facts and evidence, to find out whether there is any illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the impugned judgment warranting interference by this Court.

11. The ground for eviction under Section 11(2)(b) of the Act, projected by the petitioners/landlords, was found against by the Rent Control Court and that was not challenged by the landlords. The concurrent finding of the Rent Control Court as well as the Rent Control Appellate Authority under Section 11(3) of the Act, is the subject matter of challenge in this revision.

12. According to the petitioners/landlords, they owned a four storied shopping c