Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KER) 10858
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A. Muhamed Mustaque, P. Krishna Kumar, JJ
PERINGALI SATHEESH KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
T. P. DINESH BABU – Respondent
RCRev. 220/2024
NISHA GEORGE, SIDHARTH.R.WARIYAR, K.V.PAVITHRAN, JAYANANDAN MADAYI PUTHIYAVEETTIL, JITHIN S SUNDARAN, ADARSH KURIAN
The notification under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act remains valid despite changes in local authority, and findings of fact by lower courts should not be disturbed unless proven perverse.
Headnote:(A) Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 - Sections 11(2)(b), 11(3), and 1(3) - Revision petition by tenant against eviction order - Tenant contended that the notification under the Act was invalid post conversion of area to Municipality - Court held that the notification remains valid irrespective of local authority changes - Bona fide need of landlord for daughter’s occupation upheld, with no evidence of mala fide intention - Revision petition dismissed. (Paras 1-3)
(B) Eviction Proceedings - The court emphasized that findings of fact by lower authorities should not be disturbed unless proven perverse - Tenant's objection regarding maintainability deemed legally unsustainable. (Paras 2-3)
Facts of the case:
The tenant challenged an eviction order based on the landlord's claim of bona fide need for his daughter, a BDS student, to occupy the premises. The tenant argued the notification under the Act was invalid after the area became a Municipality.
Findings of Court:
The court found no mala fide intention from the landlord and upheld the bona fide need for eviction, dismissing the revision petition while granting time for compliance with conditions.
Issues: The main issues included the validity of the notification post-area conversion and the assessment of the landlord's bona fide need.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the notification under the Act remains valid despite changes in local authority, and findings of fact by lower courts should not be disturbed unless they are perverse.
Result: Revision petition dismissed.
ORDER
A. Muhamed Mustaque, J.
In this revision petition, the tenant questions an order under Section 11 (2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short, “Act”). The main contention raised by the tenant is that the area where the tenanted premises located was originally within the panchayath Keezhur-Chavessary Panchayath, and thereafter, it was converted as Municipality. It is submitted that notification under the Act was in respect of the area when it was located within the Panchayath, and there was no further notification when it was converted as a Municipality. It is further contended that both the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority committed grave error in analysing the bona fide need of the landlord. It is submitted that the need projected was for the occupation of his daughter. She had not completed BDS even after nine years, and there is no likelihood of her occupying this building for starting a dental clinic. In regard to the question of maintainability of the rent control petition, this Court in respect of the same, in O.P. (RC) No.16 of 2025, held as follows:
“Under Section 1 (3) of the Act, Notification is in respect of the area and not based on the nature of the local authority. Once the area is notified, whether it later becomes Panchayat, or Corporation has no impact unless the area is excluded by separate Notification or exempted under Section 25 of the Act.”
In the light of the above, the objection regarding maintainability is legally unsustainable. In regard to the other question, it is a matter of appreciation of facts. Both the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority found that the need is bona finde in the light of the fact that the landlord requires the buildings for the occupation of his daughter, who is a BDS student. It is not for this Court to upset the findings of fact in the revisional jurisdiction unless such findings of fact is so perverse. There is nothing on record to show that the landlord has any mala fide intention in seeking eviction. It has come on record that the tenant is also not entitled to have protection under the second proviso to Section 11 (3) of the Act. In such circumstances, this revision petition is dismissed. However, we grant time up to 31.12.2025 on the following terms and conditions:
(i) An undertaking shall be filed before the Rent Control Court, within four weeks from today, that the petitioner- tenant will vacate the building within the time granted.
(ii) The entire arrears, if any, shall be cleared within four weeks and continue to pay the monthly rent up-to- date till the actual surrender of the building.
