Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 60967
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, P. G. Ajithkumar, JJ
AJITH KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
M.A.ASANARU PILLAI – Respondent
RCRev. 90 2019
P.B.KRISHNAN, P.M.NEELAKANDAN, P.B.SUBRAMANYAN, SABU GEORGE, MANU VYASAN PETER, J.HARIKUMAR, S.SHANAVAS (VAVARAMBALAM)
A landlord's bona fide need for eviction must demonstrate sincere intent, considering changing circumstances and without re-evaluation of evidence by higher courts.
Headnote:
Revision - Eviction - Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act - Sections 11(1), 11(2)(b), 11(3), 11(4)(iii) - Summary: The court interpreted Sections 11(1) and 11(3) to determine the legitimacy of the landlord's bona fide need for eviction from a rented property, emphasizing the requirement for genuine intent and adherence to procedural prerequisites.
Fact of the Case:
The tenant challenged eviction proceedings initiated by the landlord based on grounds of arrears and bona fide need, with multiple remands to evaluate the legitimacy of the landlord's claims regarding the intended business use of the property.
Issues: The primary issue centered around whether the landlord had established a genuine, bona fide need for eviction under the relevant provisions of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a bona fide need must emerge from a sincere desire, contrasting it with mere pretense, emphasizing that subsequent changes in proposed business plans do not negate the genuineness of the landlord's need.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed, upholding the concurrent orders of eviction.
Ajithkumar, J This is a revision under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 . Tenant is the petitioner. Landlord is the respondent. The respondent filed R.C.P No.3 of 2007 before the Rent Control Court (Principal Munsiff), Nedumangad seeking eviction under Section 11 (2) (b) and 11(3) of the Act. Twice the matter was remanded to the Rent Control Court. As per order dated 20.01.2018, the Rent Control court ordered eviction under 11(3) of the Act. The appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 18(1)(b) of the Act was dismissed by the Appellate Authority (District Judge, Thiruvananthapuram) on 09.01.2019.
2. The Rent Control Petition was filed seeking eviction of the petitioner on the ground of arrears of rent and bona fide need. As per the order dated 05.09.2008, the Rent Control Court ordered eviction on the ground of arrears of rent, but declined eviction on the ground of bona fide need. The essential reason for denying eviction was that the nature of the business proposed to be started was not mentioned. Order of eviction under Section 11 (2)(b) was vacated since arrears of rent was deposited by the petitioner. However, in the appeal filed by the respondent, the Appellate Authority, as per its judgment dated 27.06.2011, ordered eviction on the ground of bona fide need. The petitioner filed R.C.R No.365 of 2011 which was allowed. The matter was remanded to the Rent Control Court.
3. After the remand, the respondent got the petition amended by including the averment that he proposed to start a footwear business and further adding ground under Section 11 (4)(iii) for eviction. After trial, the Rent Control Court ordered eviction. In the appeal, the Appellate Authority, as per its judgment dated 11.04.2014, set aside the order of eviction under (4)(iii) of the Act, however, confirmed the order of eviction under (3). The petitioner approached this Court again by filing R.C.R No.195 of 2014. That R.C.R was allowed and the matter was remanded to the Rent Control Court once again. It was observed that no evidence was adduced and no materials were placed either before the Rent Control Court or Appellate Authority as to under what circumstance the earlier proposed business of plywood was changed to a business of footwear.
4. The Rent Control Court held fresh trial in obedience to the order of remand. The petition was amended by the respondent by adding the plea that plywood business earlier conducted by him ended up in loss and as a plywood business was not conducive considering his health condition, he decided to conduct a footwear business in the petition schedule shop room. After considering the evidence in detail, the Rent Control Court found the need urged by the respondent to be bona fide and ordered eviction. In the appeal, RCA No.4 of 2018, the Appellate Authority re- appreciated the evidence and after a detailed consideration, rendered judgment dated 09.01.2019, confirming the order of eviction.
5. On 01.03.2019, this revision was admitted and notice ordered to be served on the respondent. Execution of the order of eviction was stayed by an interim order in I.A No.2 of 2019 for a period of two weeks. The order of stay was extended from time to time and is still in force.
6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
7. As per the order of this Court dated 09.06.2017 remanding the matter, the Rent Control Court was obliged to decide, whether there was sufficient pleadings and proof to establish that the need urged by the respondent was honest, sincere and genuine so as to say it bonafide. Successive remands were occasioned since the respondent did not take a definite stand with respect to the business he proposed to start in the petition schedule shop room. Now his need is pleaded with definiteness. He wants to start a business in footwear. There is his oral testimony which is very detailed and meticulous to pro
