Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 6860
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P. B. Suresh Kumar, SOPHY THOMAS, JJ
N.A.NISSAM .,
– Appellant
Versus
IDICULA MATHEW @ V.K.MATHEW , – Respondent
RCRev. 210 2022
K.MOHANAKANNAN, H.PRAVEEN, SRI.S. RANJIT GOKUL DAS V.V.H.(K/420-A/2005)
The ruling reaffirms the landlords' right to evict tenants based on genuine needs under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act and emphasizes the burden on tenants to prove their claims in eviction proceedings.
Headnote:
Eviction - Tenancy - Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 - Sections 11(2)(b), 11(3), 11(4)(i) - Summary: The court analyzed the landlord's genuine need for eviction under Section 11(3) and affirmed the validity of the eviction orders for arrears of rent under Section 11(2)(b), upholding the eviction process while confirming that the tenant lacked proof for defenses claimed.
Fact of the Case:
The tenant was challenged with eviction by the landlords citing failure to pay rent and illegal subletting. The landlords aimed to start a lab in the leased space, which was disputed by the tenant, who sought to block the eviction.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the landlord's need was genuine and not a ruse to evict the tenant, noting the tenant's failure to provide evidence supporting his claims regarding the suitability of the premises or his reliance on the income from the shop.
Issues: Whether the grounds for eviction under Sections 11(2)(b), 11(3), and 11(4)(i) were valid and whether the landlord had a bona fide need for the premises.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the landlords had a legitimate need to reclaim the property under Section 11(3), and the tenant's default on rent constituted valid grounds for eviction under Section 11(2)(b).
Final Decision: Both revisions were dismissed, with costs ordered against the tenant.
O R D E R
Sophy Thomas, J.
These revisions are filed by the tenant in RCP No.7 of 2012 on the file of Rent Control Court, Pathanamthitta. He is challenging the common judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority in RCA No.4 of 2019 and RCA No.8 of 2019. The respondents herein are the landlords in the RCP.
2. The landlords filed RCP No.7 of 2012 before the Rent Control Court, Pathanamthitta, to evict the tenant from the tenanted premises under Sections 11 (2)(b), 11(3) and 11(4)(i) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’). Two rooms bearing No.397 and 398 in the first floor of the building namely, Mavinparambil building, were leased out to the tenant. In room No.397, the tenant was conducting a business in the name and style ‘NASS Business Centre’. The other room was sublet by the tenant to one Mr.Muhammed Ali for conducting a shop by name ‘ANK Cool Bar’. In fact, the tenant took the rooms on lease from the previous owner of that building. The present landlords who are the respondents herein, purchased that building on 29.07.2010 as per sale deed No.1961 of 2010 of Pathanamthitta SRO. According to the landlords, the tenant defaulted payment of rent, and the rent was kept in arrears, and he sublet one of the rooms to another man, without the knowledge or consent of the landlords. Moreover they were in bonafide need of those rooms for starting a Lab. Hence they sought eviction of the tenant under (2)(b), 11(3) and 11(4)(i) of the Act.
3. The tenant opposed the eviction petition, and according to him, there was no reason to evict him, and the grounds urged were bogus, only to evict him from the petition schedule rooms.
4. The learned Rent Control Court examined PWs 1 to 3 and marked Exts.A1 to A9 from the part of the landlords. DW1 was examined and Exts.B1 and B2 were marked from the side of the tenant.
5. After evaluating the facts and evidence, learned Rent Control Court partly allowed the eviction petition by ordering eviction under Section 11 (3) of the Act and rejected the prayer under Sections 11 (2)(b) and 11(4)(i) of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of eviction passed under (3) of the Act, the tenant filed RCA No.4 of 2019 and aggrieved by the rejection of the prayer for eviction under (2)(b) and 11(4)(i) of the Act, the landlords preferred RCA No.8 of 2019, before the Rent Control Appellate Authority.
6. The Appellate Authority considered both the appeals together, and as per common judgment dated 18.07.2022, dismissed the appeal filed by the tenant, and partly allowed the appeal filed by the landlords, setting aside rejection of prayer under Section 11 (2)(b) and ordering eviction under that head, and upholding the eviction ordered under (3) of the Act. Eviction sought under (4)(i) rejected by the Rent Control Court, was confirmed by the appellate court.
7. Against rejection of RCA No.4 of 2019, the tenant preferred Rent Control Revision No.219 of 2022, and against the eviction ordered under Sections 11 (2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act in RCA No.8 of 2019, the tenant preferred Rent Control Revision No.210 of 2022.
8. Heard learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondents/landlords, in both the revisions, together.
9. The allegation of sublease was found against the landlord by the Rent Control Court as well as the Appellate Authority. No revision is preferred against that finding by the landlords. So, that finding has become final and it need not be interfered with.
10. Now regarding the eviction sought under Section 11 (3)
of the Act, the landlords were seeking eviction of the petition schedule rooms for starting a clinical lab. PW1, the 1st respondent, herein, was a retired Lab Technician and that fact was not disputed by the tenant. Though DW1-the tenant contended that the schedule rooms were not suitable for conducting a lab as no sufficient area was there, for parking ambulance etc., PW1, during cross examina
