The bonafide need of the landlord and the entitlement of the tenant to the benefit of the first or second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965, are questions of fact to be determined by the RCC and RCAA on a case-by-case basis.

Headnote:
EVICTION - SECTION 11(3) - KERALA BUILDINGS (LEASE & RENT CONTROL) ACT, 1965 - [R.C.P.No.49/2006, R.C.P.No.52/2006] - LANDLADY SEEKS EVICTION OF TENANTS FOR STARTING A GARMENT BUSINESS - TENANTS DENY ALLEGATIONS - RCC GRANTS EVICTION UNDER SECTION 11(2)(B) IN R.C.P.No.49/2006 AND PARTLY ALLOWS EVICTION IN R.C.P.No.52/2006 - RCAA ALLOWS EVICTION IN BOTH R.C.Ps - TENANTS FILE REVISION PETITIONS - HIGH COURT FINDS NO ILLEGALITY OR IMPROPRIETY IN THE FINDINGS OF RCC OR RCAA - DISMISSES REVISION PETITIONS - CONFIRMS EVICTION ORDERS.
Fact of the Case:

Landlady filed R.C.Ps seeking eviction of tenants under Section 11(4)(i) and 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965, alleging need for vacant possession to start a garment business. Tenants denied allegations and claimed entitlement to the benefit of the second proviso to Section 11(3). RCC partly allowed eviction under Section 11(2)(b) and dismissed eviction sought under Section 11(3). RCAA allowed eviction under Section 11(3) in one R.C.P. and confirmed the order of RCC in the other R.C.P. Tenants filed revision petitions.
Finding of the Court:

The High Court found no illegality, irregularity, or impropriety in the findings of the RCC or RCAA. It held that the need alleged by the landlady was bonafide and that the tenants were not entitled to the benefit of the first or second proviso to Section 11(3).
Issues: Whether the findings of the RCC and RCAA regarding the bonafide need of the landlady and the entitlement of the tenants to the benefit of the first or second proviso to Section 11(3) were correct.
Ratio Decidendi: The High Court held that the findings of the RCC and RCAA were based on a proper appreciation of the evidence on record and that there was no ground for interference.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the revision petitions and confirmed the eviction orders passed by the RCC and RCAA.

ORDER

C.S.Sudha, J.

These R.C.Rs have been filed under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965 (the Act).

2. The petitioner-landlady filed four R.C.Ps namely R.C.P.No.152/2005, R.C.P.No.49/2006, R.C.P.No.50/2006 and R.C.P.No.52/2006 seeking eviction of the respondents-tenants in occupation of the tenanted premises in the respective R.C.Ps. In R.C.P.No.152/2005 filed on 26/09/2005, eviction of the respondent was sought under Section 11(4)(i) of the Act. The remaining three R.C.Ps were filed seeking eviction under Section 11(2)(b) and 11(3). According to the petitioner, she needs vacant possession of the schedule rooms for the purpose of starting a garment business. She has no other suitable rooms or buildings in her possession for the proposed business. She also alleged that the respondents are not entitled to the benefit of the second proviso to Section 11(3). It was also alleged that rent was in arrears in all the R.C.Ps.

3. The respondents-tenants entered appearance and filed counter in their respective R.C.Ps denying the allegation regarding arrears of rent and the bonafides of the need alleged. According to them, the need put forward is only a ruse for eviction.

4. All the four R.C.Ps were tried separately and disposed of by separate judgments. In R.C.P.No.152/2005, PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A5 were marked on the side of the petitioner. RW1 to RW3 were examined and Exts.B1 to B7 were marked on the side of the respondent. In R.C.P.No.49/2006, PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 and A2 were marked on the side of the petitioner. RW1 was examined and Exts.B1 to B7 series were marked on the side of the respondent. In R.C.P.No.52/2006, PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A3 were marked on the side of the petitioner. RW1 was examined and Exts.B1 to B10 were marked on the side of the respondent.

4.1. R.C.P.No.152/2005 seeking eviction under Section 11(4)(i) was dismissed by the Rent Control Court (RCC) by order dated 30/06/2008. R.C.A.No.84/2008 filed by the petitioner has also been dismissed by impugned judgment dated 29/08/2016 of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (RCAA), Thrissur. It is against the judgment in R.C.A.No.84/2008, R.C.R.No.16/2017 has been filed by the petitioner-landlady.

4.2. R.C.P.No.49/2006 was partly allowed by the RCC, Thrissur under Section 11(2)(b). The ground for eviction sought under Section 11(3) was dismissed. R.C.A.No.26/2010 filed by the petitioner was allowed by judgment dated 12/02/2020. The cross appeal filed by the tenant has been dismissed. It is against the judgment in R.C.A.No.26/2010, R.C.R.No.194/2020 has been filed by the respondent-tenant.

4.3. R.C.P.52/2006 was partly allowed and eviction ordered under Section 11(2)(b). Eviction sought under Section 11(3) was dismissed. R.C.A.No.162/2011 filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by the RCAA, Thrissur by judgment dated 24/11/2015 confirming the order of the RCC. It is against the judgment in R.C.A.No.162/2011, R.C.R.No.235/ 2016 has been filed by the petitioner-landlady.

4.4. As far as R.C.P.No.50/2006 is concerned, we are told that the order of the RCC granting eviction under Section 11(3) has been confirmed in R.C.A.No.147/2016 by judgment dated 07/12/2022. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents, that a revision would be filed shortly against the said judgment.

5. The only point that arises for consideration is whether the findings of the RCAA suffer from any illegality, irregularity or impropriety.

6. Heard Sri.C.Unnikrishnan, the learned counsel for the petitioner- landlady and Sri.Santhosh.P.Poduval, the learned counsel for the respondent-tenants.

7. Section 20 of the Act allows the aggrieved party to challenge the legality, regularity or propriety of the order or proceeding of an appellate authority. The revisional authority has to satisfy itself of the legality, regularity or propriety of the order or proceedings of the appellate authority. It is true that this Court under Section 20 is not expecte

Click Here to Read the rest of this document