A tenant's unauthorized subletting and a landlord's legitimate need for property can justify eviction under the applicable rental law.

O R D E R

Sophy Thomas, J.

The tenants, who suffered concurrent orders of eviction, under Sections 11 (3) and 11(4)(i) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’) are the revision petitioners herein.

2. The landlord filed RCP No.8 of 2016 before the Rent Control Court, Mananthavady, seeking eviction of the tenants under Sections 11 (3) and 11(4)(i) of the Act. According to him, the schedule premises, which was a residential building, was leased out to one Mr.Abootty, as per Ext.A1 rent agreement dated 01.08.1993. Since he was in bona fide need of that house, for the residential accommodation of his brother, who was managing their family business at Mananthavady, he wanted to get the tenants evicted from that house. The original tenant Sri.Abootty passed away, and respondents 1 to 4 are the legal heirs of deceased Abootty. After death of Sri.Abootty, his legal heirs sublet that building to the 5th respondent-Sri.K.P.Ashraf, without the knowledge and consent of the landlord. So the landlords approached the Rent Control Court for getting vacant possession of the schedule building under (3) and 11(4)(i) of the Act.

3. The legal heirs of late Mr.Abootty as well as the 5th respondent Sri.K.P.Ashraf opposed the Rent Control Petition, alleging that though Ext. A1 agreement was executed in the name of Mr.Abootty, it was a joint lease in favour of the 5th respondent-Mr.K.P.Ashraf also. From the very beginning Sri.Ashraf was residing in the first floor of that building and that fact was well known to the landlord. As Mr.Ashraf was residing there since 1993, his gas connection, Aadhar Card etc. are in the address of the schedule room. According to them, the landlord was having another building near to the schedule building, and so there is no bona fides in claiming eviction of the tenants from the schedule building. Near to the petition schedule building, family of the landlord is having a suitable building and he could very well occupy that building, if he wants to reside at Mananthavady. So according to them, the bona fide need and sublease advanced by the landlord against the tenants are only a ruse to evict them.

4. The oral testimony of PW1, PW2, RW1, Exts. A1 to A6, B1 to B7, C1 and C2 constitute the evidence before the Rent Control Court.

5. After analysing the facts and evidence, the Rent Control Court found that the bona fide need projected by the landlord as well as the sublease of the tenanted premises to the 5th respondent, without the knowledge and consent of the landlord, were genuine and so, eviction was ordered under both the grounds.

6. The respondents took the matter in appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority as RCA No.9 of 2019. The Appellate Authority affirmed the order of the Rent Control Court, and dismissed the appeal, against which they have preferred this revision under Section 20 of the Act.

7. Now we are called upon to find out whether there is any illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the judgment impugned warranting interference by this Court.

8. Heard learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

9. Admittedly, the schedule building, which is a residential house, belongs to the landlord. Ext.A1 is the lease agreement executed between the landlord and Mr.Abootty. According to the landlord, after death of Mr.Abootty, his legal heirs sublet that building to Mr.K.P.Ashraf, who is the 5th revision petitioner herein, without his knowledge and consent. Now the landlord is in bona fide need of that building for the residential accommodation of his brother Noushad, who is depending on him for the building. Mr.Noushad is managing the family business at Mananthavady and so he wants to reside at Mananthavady. He has no building to reside, other than the petition schedule building.

10. The fact that the 5th revision petitioner-Sri.K.P.Ashraf is now occupying the petition schedule room is not disputed by the te