Eviction under Section 11(3) necessitates proving a genuine and bona fide need, distinct from mere whimsy, emphasizing the burden of proof on landlords.

O R D E R

Ajithkumar, J.

The tenants are the petitioners in R.C.Rev.Nos.126 and 127 of 2013. The landlord is the petitioner in R.C.Rev.No.102 and 116 of 2014. The Rent Control Court (Munsiff), Alappuzha, and the Rent Control Appellate Authority (District Judge), Alappuzha, concurrently ordered eviction of the petitioners in R.C.Rev.Nos.126 and 127 of 2013 under Section 11 (3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act , 1965, from the respective petition schedule premises. The claim of the landlord for eviction of the petitioners in R.C.Rev.Nos.102 and 116 of 2014 from the respective petition schedule premises was declined by both the authorities. In these revision petitions filed under Section 20 of the Act, the tenants, as well as the landlord, challenge the respective orders that went against them.

2. These revision petitions were admitted to file.

Execution of the orders of eviction of the petitioners in R.C.Rev.No.126 and 127 of 2013 has been stayed until further orders.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the tenants and also the learned counsel appearing for the landlord.

4. The parties are hereinafter referred to as the landlord and tenants for convenience.

5. These cases have a chequered history. The petition schedule premises form part of a larger building. Each of the tenanted premises is a residential unit having a front room, lean-to and a kitchen. The structure exists as a line-building. The landlord filed six Rent Control Petitions seeking eviction of the respective tenants under Section 11 (2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act. It was alleged that none of the tenants was paying rent. The need urged was that the tenanted premises involved in R.C.P.Nos.20, 21 and 22 of 1997 were required for the residential accommodation of the landlord. He proposed to reconstruct the building in order to accommodate his residence. The landlord wants eviction of the tenants in R.C.P.Nos.25, 26 and 27 of 1997 for the purpose of providing a 20 metre wide access from the public road on the northern side to the backyard of the line building. The area of the land is 64 cents and there exists a godown behind the line- building. After demolishing the three residential units, 20 metre wide access is proposed to be provided.

6. The tenants resisted the claim for eviction on various grounds. Title of the landlord was denied. Tenants also claimed Kudikidappu right. The need urged by the landlord was denied stating that he having employed in Mumbai, there is no basis for his plea that he wanted to put up residence at Alappuzha. Not only the landlord, but all his family members also are residing in Mumbai. The contention that 20 metre wide access is required to the backyard of the building, for which three residential units are to be demolished, has also been seriously assailed by the tenants. It is contended that the land on the hind side of the tenanted premises has direct access from the public roads on the west and south and as such, there was no necessity to have another access. Moreover, there is no rhyme or reason for providing a 20 metre wide access when the public road itself does not have more than 4 metre width.

7. On the basis of the said rival contentions, the Rent Control Court conducted a joint trial and as per the order dated 15.09.2007 allowed the petitions directing all the tenants to surrender vacant possession of the respective petition schedule premises. The tenants took up the matter in appeal. The Appellate Authority as per a common judgment dated 15.06.2002 dismissed all the six appeals. Therefore, the tenants approached this Court by filing revision petitions. This Court as per a common order in R.C.Rev.No.401 of 2004 and connected cases dated 22.03.2005, which has been reported in Ratheesh Kumar v. Jithendrakumar T.Lodhya [2005 (2) KLT 669], has set aside the order of eviction concurrently rendered by the courts below. The matter was remanded. While remanding the matter, this Court confirmed that the contention of th