The landlord's bona fide need for eviction under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act must be recognized, and courts should not dictate the suitability of premises for the landlord's intended use.

O R D E R

C.S.Sudha, J. The three R.C.Ps. from which these revisions arise, were initiated by the landlords in the year 1994. 29 long years have elapsed. The 3 rd petitioner for whom the need was put forward was a young man aged 40 years when the R.C.P.s were filed. Now he must be around 70 years. The lis is yet to reach a finality. Here it would be apposite to refer and quote a paragraph from the decision of the Apex court in Shakuntala Bai v. Narayan Das, AIR 2004 SC 3484 which reads-

“1. It is a shocking case. A suit for eviction of a tenant was instituted more than 42 years back in March, 1962 for the bona fide need of carrying on business by the owner landlord but his widow and sons are still knocking the doors of Court of justice. During the pendency of the appeal filed by the tenant the landlord died leaving a widow and minor sons but this, the High Court thought, came to the advantage of the tenant, rendering the suit liable for dismissal, little realizing that they also needed some place to carry on business for survival. Such extreme views erode the faith of people in the judicial system prompting them to take recourse to extra judicial methods to recover possession of their property.” (Emphasis supplied)

If litigations meander on like this, can we find fault with the litigants who, fed up with by the long wait for justice, are prompted to take law into their own hands? We doubt.

2. These Rent control revisions under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (the Act) have been filed against the common judgment dated 23/12/2015 in R.C.A.No.38/2003, 40/2003, 41/2003 & 47/2003 which in turn are appeals arising from the common order dated 11/04/2003 in RCP Nos.68/1994, 69/1994 and 78/1994. The parties and the documents will be referred to as described in the R.C.Ps.

3. R.C.P.No.68/1994, 69/1994 and 78/1994 were filed by the petitioners-landlords seeking eviction of the respondents under Sections 11 (3) and 11(4)(iii) of the Act. In R.C.P.No.68/1994 it is alleged that the petition schedule room bearing No.25/445 of Thrissur Municipality is one among the three rooms situated in the ground floor of a three storied building owned by the petitioners. The room was let out to the respondent for a monthly rent of ₹27 by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners. When the petitioners became the owners of the building, the respondent attorned to them. The 3 rd petitioner is an orthopeadic surgeon employed in a hospital at Kunnamkulam. He wants to start a clinic of his own and so he bona fide needs the petition schedule room as well as the other two rooms in the ground floor and the first floor for the conduct of the clinic. The petitioners intend to conveniently modify the rooms so as to run a clinic with the required facilities. The remaining petitioners will provide necessary aid and help to the 3 rd petitioner to start the clinic. A lawyer notice was issued to the respondent requesting surrender of the building for the aforesaid need. However, the respondent has not obliged and hence the R.C.P. seeking eviction under Section 11 (3) of the Act.

3.1. The original respondent-tenant filed counter denying the allegations in the petition. The need alleged was disputed and it was contended that it is a mere ruse for eviction and that the petitioners have no intention to start a clinic as alleged in the petition. They also claimed the benefit of the second proviso to Section 11 (3) of the Act. The original respondent died during the pendency of the R.C.P and hence additional respondents 2 to 5 were impleaded as his legal heirs. They filed additional counter reiterating the contentions of the 1 st respondent.

3.2. R.C.P.No.69/1994 was filed seeking eviction under Section 11 (3) as well as (4)(iii) of the Act. The petition schedule room is in the first floor of a larger building owned by the petitioners. This room, according to the petitioners, has been let out to the respondent on 06.09.1992 for a mo