Back
Sarojini – Appellant
Versus
Meethale Kadiyanthottathil C. H. Meenakshi – Respondent
ORDER :
1. The revision petitioners are the tenants in R.C.P. No. 28 of 2019 of the Rent Control Court, Vatakara who suffered an order of eviction under Section 11(4)(v) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short 'the Act'). The appeal preferred by them before the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Additional District Judge), Vatakara as R.C.A.No. 23 of 2022 also met with failure. Challenging the concurrent verdicts of the Rent Control Court and Appellate Authority, the petitioners are here with this revision.
2. The petition schedule shop room which originally belonged to the husband of the 1st respondent, bequeathed upon his wife and children who are the respondents-landlords. It was leased out to the husband of the 1st petitioner in the year 1987. After the death of the 1st petitioner’s husband, the petitioners continued to be the tenants of the shop room with its fair rent fixed at Rs.900/- per month from 11.03.2005 onwards. Complaining the non-payment of rent from 12.12.2015 onwards, and the cessation of occupation for a period of more than one year, the respondents-landlords approached the Rent Control Court for eviction of the revision petitioners. Du
Eviction under Section 11(4)(v) requires actual occupation for business, not mere physical presence; concurrent findings of lower courts upheld.
The tenant's failure to occupy a rented building for six months constitutes valid grounds for eviction, regardless of subsequent changes in ownership of the property.
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
Joint eviction petition by landlords permissible under law; High Court limited to examining legality without re-evaluation of evidence.
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....
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.
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.
Point of Law : Findings rendered by the courts below were well supported by evidence on record and could not even be said to be perverse in any way. The High Court could not have re-appreciated the e....
Established the necessity for tenants to prove dependency on income from the premises against landlords' bona fide needs under relevant statutory provisions.
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.
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
