Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 38315
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, M.R.ANITHA, JJ
SIMON K.J. – Appellant
Versus
MANGAMMA @ BREJITH ANDREWS – Respondent
RCREV. NO. 164 OF 2020 | RCA 11/2019
For the Appellants/Petitioners: DEEPAK JOY
For the Respondents: SRI.ALEXANDER JOSEPH
The court upheld the landlord's bona fide need for eviction, emphasizing that genuine necessity must be substantiated with clear evidence rather than mere assertions.
Headnote:(A) Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 - Sections 11(3), 11(4)(ii), 11(4)(v) - Eviction petition filed by the landlord against tenant on grounds of non-occupation for more than six months and misuse - Court reiterates that bona fide requirement must be demonstrated and not merely claimed - In this case, the necessity for the son of the landlord to operate a provision store is upheld, reinforcing the importance of the first-hand evidence presented. (Paras 2-4, 10, 12, 18)
(B) Rent Control Jurisdiction - Court's powers under Section 20 are limited to preventing gross miscarriage of justice and cannot involve re-appreciation of evidence - Courts cannot interfere if findings are supported by material and are not perverse or arrived at through irregularities. (Paras 8, 10, 21)
Facts of the case:
The landlord's son seeks to establish a provision store in the shop room from which the tenant is being evicted, despite the tenant's claims of legitimate need for living elsewhere.
Findings of Court:
The concurrent findings in favor of the landlord regarding bona fide need have not been shown to be flawed and are thereby upheld.
Issues: Whether the concurrent findings relating to the bona fide need of the landlord warrant interruption by the revisional court.
Ratio Decidendi: The courts confirmed that the requirements for eviction need solid evidence of necessity, distinguishing bona fide need from mere desire without evidence.
Result: Revision petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of eviction petition and tenant's objections. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 6) |
| 2. limits of revisional jurisdiction in eviction matters. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 3. evidence of bona fide need must be established concretely. (Para 14 , 15 , 18) |
| 4. court upholds the findings of the need for eviction. (Para 29 , 34) |
ORDER
M.R.Anitha, J.
This Rent Control Revision petition has been directed against the judgment in R.C.A.No.11 of 2019 on the file of Additional District Judge and Rent Control Appellate Authority, North Paravur, dated 17.12.2019, which arises out of the order dated 6.6.2019 in R.C.P.No.11 of 2011 of the Rent Control Court, North Paravur.
2. This is the second round of litigation before this Court in connection with the aforesaid R.C.P. Revision petitioners are the respondents-tenant in the R.C.P.11 of 2011 filed by the 1st respondent herein-landlord, along with his son, the 2nd respondent herein, seeking eviction of the petition schedule shop room under Sections 11 (3), 11(4)(ii) and 11(4)(v) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (in short 'the Act'), on the ground that the tenant ceased to occupy the petition schedule shop room for more than six months continuously and that they are using the said shop room in such a manner so as to destroy and reduce its value and utility materially and permanently. Second petitioner is unemployed and wants to start a provision store in the petition schedule room. The petitioners have no other vacant room in the locality. A lawyer notice was issued to the respondent on 26.6.2011 demanding vacant possession, to which a reply was sent raising untenable contentions. Thereafter the R.C.P was filed.
3. The tenants filed objection admitting the tenancy arrangement. Contention regarding non-joinder of necessary parties was raised since Friends Arts Club and its office bearers were not made parties. [Subsequently they were impleaded as additional respondent Nos. 2 to 4 in the R.C.P. The present President of the club was impleaded as additional respondent NO.5 in R.C.A, as per order in I.A.1031 of 2019]. The tenants contended that the 2nd petitioner is highly qualified and employed and is doing share market and real estate business. Hence there is no bona fides in the need urged by the landlady. They are residing at Kothamangalam, about 75 kilometres away from the petition schedule room, and have landed properties there. Hence they have no need to conduct a provision store. The allegation of non use of the room continuously for more than six months and use of the building so as to reduce its value and utility materially and permanently are also stoutly denied.
4. During trial PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A5 were marked on the side of the landlady. RW1 was examined on the side of the tenant. Thereafter, on hearing both sides, the Rent Control Court allowed the Rent Control Petition in part, under Section 11 (3) of the Act and refused the prayer for eviction under Sections 11 (4)(ii) and 11(4(v). Against which, R.C.A.No. 7 of 2013 was filed before the Additional District Court and Rent Control Appellate Authority, North Paravur and as per the judgment dated 20.11.2015 the Appellate Authority allowed the appeal and set aside the order of eviction passed under (3) of the Act, by the Rent Control Court.
5. Aggrieved by the same, tenant filed R.C.R.No.11 of 2016 before this Court and as per the order dated 16.3.2017 this Court set aside the order of the Appellate Authority and the case was remanded to the Rent Control Court for the limited purpose of deciding the question as to whether the son of landlady was permanently employed or not at the time of filing of the petition or thereafter. It was also made clear that the scope of remand is confined to the bona fide need urged under Section 11 (3) of the Act and finding in favour of the landlady under both provisos to (3) and the rejection of the eviction sought under (4)(ii) are confirmed.
