Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, P. KRISHNA KUMAR, JJ
T.V. Babu – Appellant
Versus
Beena. K.P – Respondent
ORDER :
P. Krishna Kumar, J.
The landlord who filed an eviction petition under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (‘the Act’, for short) suffered an adverse finding by the Rent Control Court and the Rent Control Appellate Authority concurrently, is before us by invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under the Act.
2. The contention of the landlord was that he bona fide needed the vacant possession of the shop room rented out to the tenant on 28.04.2006, for the occupation of his dependent son, for starting a computer-related business. Both the courts concurrently found that the need projected by the landlord was bona fide. However, they found that the landlord was in possession of certain other rooms in the shopping complex owned by him, which also housed the petition-scheduled shop room. It is also found that the landlord failed to show any special reasons for getting the eviction order, in view of the first proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act.
3. We have heard Sri.Arun Krishna Dhan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Jawahar Jose, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
4. Ordinarily, this Court will be
The tenant must specifically plead and prove the identity of vacant buildings in the landlord's possession to invoke the first proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act.
The landlord's bona fide need for eviction is upheld unless the tenant proves that subsequent events fully negate this requirement.
The death of a landlord does not negate the bona fide need for eviction under the Rent Control Act, and the tenant must prove any claims against eviction.
Tenants must clearly plead claims for permanent tenancy; revision jurisdiction does not allow re-evaluation of factual findings unless gross irregularity is shown.
The bona fide need of a landlady under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, outweighs the tenant's assertions of mala fides.
The landlord must provide sufficient evidence of special needs when seeking eviction, particularly when alternative premises are available.
Established the necessity for tenants to prove dependency on income from the premises against landlords' bona fide needs under relevant statutory provisions.
Eviction under Section 11(4)(v) requires actual occupation for business, not mere physical presence; concurrent findings of lower courts upheld.
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.
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
