Landlords must prove bona fide need for eviction while tenants must demonstrate reliance on premises for livelihood without alternative options.

O R D E R

Ajithkumar, J Respondents are the landlords. They filed R.C.P.Nos.5, 6 and

7 of 2014 before the Rent Control Court (Munsiff), Perambra seeking eviction of the revision petitioners – tenants from the respective petition schedule shop rooms which are part of a larger two-storied building, under Section 11 (2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control Act) , 1965. A joint trial was held. The Rent Control Court as per the order dated 21.12.2017, disallowed eviction under section 11(2)(b) of the Act holding that the rent in arrears was paid by the tenants. The Rent Control Court however allowed all the petitions under (3) of the Act directing the petitioners to surrender respective tenanted premises within three months from the date of that order. The petitioners preferred appeals under section 18 (1)(b) of the Act before the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Additional District Judge), Vatkara. The appeals were unsuccessful. The petitioners thereupon filed these revision petitions invoking the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 20 of the Act.

2. On 11.12.2020, this Court admitted the revisions to file and ordered notice to the respondents. The respondents entered appearance through their counsel.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and also the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that both the courts below did not appreciate the evidence in its proper perspective, but after having a peremptory consideration, held that the need urged by the respondents was bona fide. It has come out in evidence that other rooms in the same building belonging to the respondents were lying vacant. The reasons set forth by the respondents for not occupying those rooms were absolutely insufficient or acceptable even from a common-sense point of view. The respondents did not care to state in the eviction petitions about the availability of such vacant rooms in their possession and only when that fact came to be proved, the 1st respondent, PW1 came forward with an explanation for not occupying the said rooms which are not plausible or logical. The courts below however accepted the explanation and thereby went wrong in holding that the special reasons offered by them are satisfactory.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further would submit that the ability or experience of the 2nd respondent to conduct a ladies tailoring unit which the respondents propose to start in the petition schedule shop rooms were not attempted to be proved even. The oral testimony of PW1 alone in this respect is insufficient to satisfy the conscience of the court that the need urged is an honest or genuine one. The learned counsel, for such reasons, canvassed for a finding that the need urged by the respondents is not a bona fide one. It is also contended that the facts proved in the case certainly disentitles the respondents from getting an order of eviction on account of the caveat contained in the first proviso to section 11(3) of the Act.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, would submit that the need is that of the 2nd respondent, a deaf woman having a child who is finding it difficult to meet his life necessities on account of desertion by her husband. Having it been the definite case of the respondents that three rooms involved in these cases together with the adjoining vacant room, which are in the ground floor of the building are required to accommodate the tailoring unit, the 2nd respondent with the help of the 1st respondent proposes to start, it would be quite hard to assail the bonafides of that need. The 2nd respondent being a differently-abled person, it is the concern of everyone that she is properly accommodated so as she get on with her life comfortably. After the death of her father who was the original landlord, the 2nd respondent is a co-owner. She, confronted with