Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 18193
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A. K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., JJ
THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES – Appellant
Versus
SAFIYA – Respondent
RCRev. 129 2023
SHRI.M.N.MANMADAN, CGC, VINOD RAVINDRANATH (CAVEATOR)
Bona fide need for eviction is a valid ground even for government representatives, provided tenants do not demonstrate the existence of alternate suitable premises.
Headnote:
Eviction - Rent Control - Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 - Section 11(3) - The court upheld eviction orders based on the bona fide need of the landlords, confirming that the government's representation does not exempt it from compliance with standard eviction rules.
Fact of the Case:
The Union of India contested eviction orders under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, initiated by landlords for their need to use the premises for official purposes, alleging low rent and bonafide need for business.
Issues: Whether the landlords' need for eviction was bona fide and whether the eviction petitions were maintainable, considering the tenant's counter-arguments regarding representation and availability of alternate premises.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the burden of proving the availability of alternate premises rested on the tenants and that renting premises for essential services did not negate the landlords' right to eviction.
Final Decision: Revisions dismissed; petitioners granted nine months to vacate the premises under specific conditions.
O R D E R
Mohammed Nias C.P., J.
The Union of India represented by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Tirur Division, have filed these revisions aggrieved by the orders of eviction passed under Section 11 (3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 , (for short, Act') in RCP Nos. 85 and 86 of 2016 filed by the respondents herein. The respondents/ landlords were the petitioners who sought eviction under (3) of the Act of the rooms entrusted to the first and the second respondents in the rent control petitions for the purpose of housing the Tirur Head Post Office and the Office of the Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices, Tirur Sub Division respectively, as per the lease agreements executed between the parties on 16.7.2005. RCP No.85/2016 was filed for evicting the first floor while RCP No.86/2016 pertains to the eviction of the second floor. The monthly rent fixed was Rs.1,000/- in RCP 86/2016 and Rs.20,000/- in RCP 85/2016. The landlords contended that the rent being paid was very low and in spite of their request, the rent has not been enhanced. They also pleaded a bonafide need for the third respondent in the rent control petitions who was also a landlord working in the Gulf at that point in time and intending to settle down in the native place of the petitioners and wanted to start a textile business in the petition schedule building.
It was also their contention that there were no other suitable buildings for the said purpose whereas there were other buildings available in Tirur to house the office of the respondents.
2. The revision petitioners/tenants had filed a counter statement contending that the petitions were bad as the Government of India was not arrayed as a party and that the need projected is not at all bonafide as there is no intention on the part of the landlords to start any business. It is also their contention that there was no other suitable or convenient building to shift their office Since the post office is a utility service, they prayed for dismissal of the rent control petitions.
3. The trial court considered both rent control petitions jointly. PWS 1 and
2 were examined and Exts.A1 to A8 were marked. No evidence was adduced on the side of the respondents. The tenants had also filed an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act for directing the landlords /petitioners to take recourse to Arbitration, which was dismissed by the Rent Control Court placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ranjith Kumara Bose and another v. Ananya Chaudari and another [AIR 2014 SC 1534]. The Rent Controller thereafter considered the case and found that the need projected was bona fide and that the benefit of the second proviso to Section 11 of the Act was not available as the parties were the Government of India and government servants. Feeling aggrieved by the common judgment in both cases, the rent control appeals, as stated above, were filed.
4. The appellate court found that the argument that the rent control petitions were not maintainable in view of the Arbitration clause was not acceptable in view of the judgments inGirindra Global Hospitality v. Manappuram Hotels (P) Ltd. [ILR 2022 (4) Kerala 144 and Vidhya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corporation [ (2021) 2 SCC 1 ]. The argument of the tenants that the third respondent was arrayed as a respondent, though not a co-owner and therefore, it must be treated that he did not give consent for filing of the rent control petitions was also rejected as the notice itself was sent by the petitioners and the third respondent jointly. He had also opposed the appeal filed by the tenant. Therefore, the appellate authority found that it was with the consent of the third respondent and that he happened to be arrayed as a respondent only because of his non-availability at the time of filing the case. Regarding the question of bona fides, the appellate authority found that the evidence of PWs1 and 2 showed that the pe
