A landlord's attempt to sell property does not automatically negate bona fide needs for eviction under the Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act.

ORDER

A.Muhamed Mustaque, J .

This revision was filed by the tenants. The Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority ordered eviction under Section 11(3) of the Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (in short “the Act”) on the ground of the bona fide need of one of the landlords.

2. The tenanted premises originally belonged to one Meenakshi. Thereafter, Meenakshi assigned the building to the present landlords. The present landlords entered into a sale agreement with Manalil Khader, who was subsequently impleaded in the proceedings. The agreements appear to have been executed in 2006, 2009, and 2012. The suit filed by Khader for specific performance was dismissed by the Civil Court. One of the grounds urged in the revision petition was that the landlords initiated the rent control petition for eviction after Khader had filed the suit. It is also the case of the tenants that the assignment in favour of the present landlords has been questioned by the legal heirs of Meenakshi. However, there is no dispute to the fact that a landlord-tenant relationship exists and that the present landlords are the owners of the building.

3. The landlords sought eviction for the bona fide need of the first respondent, Shuhaib (one of the landlords), who intends to start a supermarket. Both the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority were satisfied with the bona fides of the need projected by the landlord. It was also held that the tenant is not entitled to protection under the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act.

4. Adv.Sri.Premnath B, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, argued that the civil litigation between the parties in regard to title and specific performance had been overlooked by the authorities while assessing the bona fide needs in the proper perspective. It is submitted that a landlord who attempted to sell the property and thereafter initiates proceedings for eviction, after the filing of a suit for specific performance, cannot be said to have bona fides in claiming eviction under section 11(3) of the Act.

5. We cannot hold that the attempt of the landlord to sell the tenanted premises to a third party would affect his bona fides in seeking eviction. No doubt, the eviction petition was filed by Khader after filing the suit for specific performance. However, that does not preclude the landlord from invoking his statutory right to seek eviction on the ground of bona fide need. The landlord may have had many reasons for deciding to sell the tenanted premises. Perhaps, instead of proceeding with the sale, he thought it would be more prudent to start a business there to generate income.

6. The human mind exercises its choice and options often in varied circumstances; exigencies may force a person to reverse a decision in pursuit of a more workable desire. Such uncertainties of the human mind in making decisions cannot be construed as malice or mala fides. The perplexities of the human mind are obvious because the reasons behind a decision may not always be consistent or fully satisfied, and the process of decision-making is itself subject to change. Therefore, an attempt to sell the tenanted premises will not, by itself, stand as a testimony of the mala fides possessed by the landlord. Also, the challenge made against the landlord's title, by itself, will not foreclose him from seeking eviction as per the law.

7. Thus, we hold that no ground is made out to interfere with the orders. However, we grant six months from today to the tenants to vacate the building on the following terms and conditions;

1) The revision petitioners/tenants shall undertake that they will vacate the b