The landlord's bona fide requirement for eviction under Section 11(3) does not necessitate prior experience or a partnership deed, and delays in seeking eviction do not negate bona fides.

O R D E R

Easwaran S., J.

The rent control revision is preferred by the landlord aggrieved by the judgment of the rent control appellate authority, Kozhikkode dated 26.10.2017 in RCA No.167/2016.

2. The brief facts for the disposal of the revision are as follows:

The revision petitioner-landlord sought eviction of the respondent- tenant under Section 11 (3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 [“Act”, for short]. The tenanted premises originally belonged to the petitioner’s mother, Ummachu Hajumma, by virtue of kanam assignment deed No.617/1972. After her death, her legal heirs entered into partition deed No.2065/2008 and by virtue of the said partition deed, the tenanted premises was allotted to Abdul Rasheed, the bother of the petitioner. Later by assignment deed No.1127/2008, the petitioner purchased the premises from her brother. The shop room in question was let out by the predecessor of the petitioner for a monthly rent of Rs.300/-. After the petitioner purchased the property, the factum of purchase was intimated to the respondent-tenant. From 1.1.2009 onwards, the rent in respect of the tenanted premises is under default and that the petitioner requires the petition schedule property for starting an ice-cream parlor with her husband on partnership basis. On 19.3.2013, a notice was issued to the tenant for vacating the premises. The tenant entered appearance and objected to the claim of the landlord and it was contended that the petition schedule shop room was taken on lease by the father of the tenant, Vasu, in the year 1958 for an amount of Rs.2/- per month. The tenant further contended that there is no bona fide requirement to the landlord and the reason stated is only to evict the tenant from the tenanted premises.

3. On behalf of the landlord, Exts.A1 to A12 documents were produced and the landlord was examined as PW1. On behalf of the tenant, Exts.B1 to B2(a) documents were produced and the tenant was examined as RW1. The rent controller on appreciation of evidence found that the claim under Section 11 (3) of the Act is not bona fide, but however, on finding that the rent was in arrears, ordered eviction under (2)(b) with costs. Aggrieved by the order of the rent controller, the landlord preferred an appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority concurred with the finding of the rent controller on the lack of bona fide need of the landlord and therefore, dismissed the appeal. However, the finding under (2)(b) of the Act was not interfered with.

4. Herad Sri.Srinath Girish, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-landlord and Sri.K.Rakesh, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-tenant.

5. On a consideration of the rival submissions raised across the bar, we are of the view that the revision petitioner is entitled to succeed. No doubt, the question of the bona fides of the landlord is concurrently found against the landlord. It is now well settled that while exercising the powers of revisional jurisdiction under Section 20 , this Court may not interfere with the findings of fact. However, this Court cannot remain oblivious of the perverse finding of facts by the rent controller as well as the appellate authority. Certainly, if this Court finds that the appreciation of facts by both the authorities is perverse, then the same can certainly be interfered with in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under of the Act. With the above premise, we proceed to consider the case on merits.

6. Certain facts in this case are not disputed. Originally, the petition schedule shop room belonged to the petitioner’s brother from whom the petitioner purchased the same in the year 2008. The factum of the purchase of the petition schedule shop room by the petitioner-landlord from the original landlord was intimated to the tenant. Therefore, the landlord had complied with the statutory requirement of intimating the tenant regarding the change of ownership and was