The court established that a landlord's bona fide need for eviction is justified when the tenant has ceased to occupy the premises, overriding previous court findings.

O R D E R

Easwaran S., J.

The revision petition is filed by the landlord aggrieved by the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Aauthority (Additional District Court-III), Thalassery, in RCA No.4/2015 dated 9.7.2018.

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

The revision petitioner-landlord approached the rent control court, Taliparamba with a petition under Sections 11 (2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (‘Act’, for short). The buildings in question originally belonged to Jameela Beegam and the tenant obtained one room from Jameela Beegam on 6.10.1997 for a period of three months and another room for conducting a travel agency on 21.2.1995 for six months. On 2.12.2010, the revision petitioner purchased the petition schedule buildings and ever since the respondent continued to be the tenant under the revision petitioner. It was alleged that the tenant has defaulted in payment of rent and the petitioner is in bona fide need of the petition schedule buildings along with the adjacent buildings in possession of Valiya Valappil Padinjarepurayil Haneef and Pulimoottil C.L.Vasanthan for starting a furniture shop. Accordingly, notice was issued to the respondent-tenant on 13.10.2012 and the same was accepted on 17.10.2012, but the tenant did not vacate the premises.

3. The respondent-tenant entered appearance and objected to the claim stating that the need projected by the landlord is not bona fide. On behalf of the revision petitioner, Exts.A1 to A6 documents were marked and PW1 was examined. The respondent- tenant produced Ext.B1 extract of the building tax assessment register and RW1 to RW3 were examined. On appreciation of evidence, the rent controller found that the petitioner could not establish the contention that rent is due from 2.12.2010 and that the need projected by the landlord was not bona fide and accordingly dismissed the prayers under Sections 11 (2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act. Aggrieved by the said order, the revision petitioner-landlord preferred an appeal as RCA No.4/2015. In appeal, the finding under Section 11 (3) of the Act was affirmed, but however, the order of the rent controller dismissing the claim under (2)(b) of the Act was set aside and the landlord was granted eviction under (2)(b) of the Act.

4. Dissatisfied with the findings rendered by the rent control appellate court in RCA No.4/2015 confirming the findings of the rent controller in RCP No.2/2013 on the bona fide need under Section 11 (3) of the Act, the landlord has come up with the present revision petition. In the meantime, it is stated across the bar that the other tenants have vacated the premises. However, the respondent alone is not evicted.

5. Heard Sri.Abdul Raoof P., the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner-landlord and Sri.Mahesh V.Ramakrishnan, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-tenant.

6. When the matter was taken up for consideration on 21.2.2025, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner- landlord asserted before this Court that the tenant has ceased to occupy the tenanted premises and therefore, the revision petitioner is entitled to get eviction of the tenant on the sole ground alone. At the request of the revision petitioner, we appointed Smt.Lakshmi Sreedhar as the Advocate Commissioner to ascertain the assertion made by the revision petitioner. Accordingly, the Advocate Commissioner visited the tenanted premises on 22.2.2025. The Advocate Commissioner has filed a report dated 22.2.2025. Paragraph Nos.5 to 7 of the said report are extracted hereunder for reference:

“5. The rooms did not have electricity, and when asked about this, the respondent explained that the electricity supply had been disconnected the previous night. The room contained two tables in a dilapidated state, five chairs, a couple of tubelights, a printer that appeared unused and was kept aside, a scanner kept on the table without being co