Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, P. G. Ajithkumar, JJ
SREEDHARAN K.NAIR – Appellant
Versus
SOUDHA – Respondent
RCRev. 134 2021
Eviction - Rent Control - Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act - Sections 11(2)(b), 11(3), 11(4)(i) - The court upheld the landlord's eviction petition based on arrears of rent and bona fide personal need for the property, interpreting key provisions that govern eviction proceedings and landlord-tenant relationships.
Fact of the Case:
The landlord filed for eviction due to non-payment of rent and the need for the property for her son's business. The tenants contested the claims of arrears and the bona fide nature of the landlord's need.
Finding of the Court:
The courts below found in favor of the landlord, confirming the arrears of rent and the need for eviction under the relevant sections of the Rent Control Act, stating both were supported by credible evidence.
Issues: Whether the landlord's eviction petition was maintainable despite the timing relative to the release deed, and whether the landlords demonstrated a bona fide need for the property.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the landlord's petition for eviction based on non-payment of rent and bona fide need was valid and maintainable under the Act, emphasizing the importance of sincerity in the landlord's claims.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed, allowing for the landlord’s eviction request.
O R D E R
Ajithkumar, J.
Respondent Nos.1 and 3 in R.C.P.No.167 of 2013 on the file of the Rent Control Court (Principal Munsiff-II), Kozhikode are the revision petitioners. They filed this revision petition under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act challenging the judgment dated 30.07.2021 of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Additional District Judge-V), Kozhikode in R.C.A.No.180 of 2016 and the order of the Rent Control Court dated 18.02.2016 in R.C.P.No.167 of
2013.
2. The 1st respondent is the landlord. R.C.P.No.167 of
2013 was filed seeking eviction under Sections 11 (2)(b), 11(3) and 11(4)(i) of the Act. It was alleged that rent from November, 2006 at the rate of Rs.1,600/- per month has been in arrears. The reason for claiming eviction under Section 11 (3) of the Act was that the second son of the 1st respondent-landlord wanted to start a wholesale and retail business of palm oil in the petition schedule shop room. The further allegation is that the 1st petitioner and 2nd respondent, who were the tenants, sublet the petition schedule shop room to the 2nd petitioner herein.
3. The petitioners jointly filed a counter statement.
They contended as follows:
The 1st petitioner and 2nd respondent were the tenants conducting business in the petition schedule shop room as a partnership firm. The 2nd respondent fell ill, and therefore, the 1st petitioner continued the business. The 2nd petitioner is the Manager of the business establishment and it is incorrect that the room was sublet to him. The petitioners did not default rent. The need urged by the 1st respondent was denied. As a ruse for eviction only such a need was projected. If at all, son of the 1st respondent needs to start a business, she is in possession of other vacant rooms suitable for the purpose. The 1st petitioner is depending on the income derived from the business in the petition schedule shop room for his livelihood. No other suitable building is available in the locality to shift his business.
4. The Rent Control Court, after considering the evidence on record, which consists of oral testimonies of PW1 and RW1 and Exts.A1 to A3 series, B1 to B19 and Exts.C1(1), C1(2) and C2 ordered eviction on all grounds as claimed by the landlord. In the appeal preferred under Section (18)(1)(b) of the Act, the Appellate Authority re-appraised the evidence and found that there was no reason to interfere with the order of eviction.
5. On 08.10.2021, this Court ordered status quo with respect to the petition schedule shop room till 22.10.2021.
The order was extended from time to time.
6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and also the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent.
7. The 1st respondent is the landlord. She along with Kunjeearambalath Ummayabi were the owners of the petition schedule shop room. As per a release deed executed on 10.05.2013, Kunjeearambalath Ummayabi assigned her right in the property in favour of the 1st respondent. She, claiming thereby to be the owner of the property, filed R.C.P.No.167 of 2013. The petitioners raised a contention regarding maintainability of the rent control petition, that having it been filed on 29.06.2013, which was within a period of one year from the date of the release deed, i.e., 10.05.2013, it comes within the mischief of the third proviso to Section 11 (3) of the Act.
8. Going by the third proviso to Section 11 (3) of the Act, a landlord, who acquired right to recover possession under an instrument of transfer inter vivos shall not be entitled to apply for eviction until the expiry of one year from the date of the instrument. The 1st respondent was a co- owner and as per release deed dated 10.05.2013, she acquired the whole of the property. Such a release cannot be termed as a transfer inter vivos within the meaning of the third proviso to (3) of the Act. That apart, there is no bar for a co-owner to apply for eviction under the provisions of of the Act, provided t
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
