A wife of a tenant does not possess independent tenant rights against the landlord; eviction is permissible if the husband is the tenant and a bona fide need is established.

O R D E R

Ajithkumar, J.

The 1st respondent-landlord filed R.C.P.No.18 of 2017 before the Rent Control Court (Additional Munsiff-IV), Thiruvananthapuram, seeking eviction of the 2nd respondent and the petitioner, who are the husband and wife, from the petition schedule building under Section 11 (2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 . That petition was allowed as per order dated 05.09.2019. The petitioner has filed an appeal under Section 18 (1)(b) of the Act before the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Additional District Court-IV), Thiruvananthapuram. The appeal was dismissed as per judgment dated 13.12.2021. Aggrieved thereof, this revision under Section 20 of the Act has been filed.

2. When this matter came up for admission today, we heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in detail.

3. Eviction was sought on the ground that the petitioner and the 2nd respondent, who are the tenants, defaulted payment of rent at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month from January, 2016 onwards and that the building was required for the residence of the daughter of the 1st respondent. The petitioner alone contested the R.C.P. The 2nd respondent remained exparte. The petitioner resisted the plea for eviction raising various contentions. She contended that it was the 2nd respondent, her husband, who entered into the tenancy arrangement with the 1st respondent. She has been residing in the petition schedule building along with the 2nd respondent, but their relationship had broken down, and therefore, she along with her child continued in occupation of the premises. The 2nd respondent deserted her and left. Thereafter, the 1st respondent in collusion with the 2nd respondent has filed the petition for eviction. She denied liability to pay any rent. She also contended that since she has been residing in the building as the wife of the 2nd respondent, it is her shared household, she is not liable to be evicted therefrom, as long as she is not provided with an alternative accommodation.

4. The Rent Control Court recorded oral evidence of PW1 and received Exts.A1 and A2. After hearing both sides, eviction under Sections 11 (2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act was ordered directing the petitioner and the 2nd respondent to put the 1st respondent in vacant possession of the petition schedule building within one month from the date of that order.

5. In the appeal preferred by the petitioner, the Appellate Authority has re-appreciated the evidence and held that the petitioner was not a tenant but only a member of the family of the tenant and there was no reason to interfere with the findings of the Rent Control Court and the order of eviction. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the order of eviction is bad in law inasmuch as the concurrent finding is to the effect that the petitioner is not the tenant. There is no landlord-tenant relationship between the petitioner and the 1st respondent, and therefore, the courts below should not have ordered eviction of the petitioner. The courts below lack jurisdiction for ordering eviction of the petitioner under the provisions of the Act. Such a case set forth by the petitioner was not accepted by the courts below. The courts below concurrently held that the 2nd respondent, who is the husband of the petitioner, is the tenant and as a member of his family alone the petitioner has been residing in the building. As the wife she may be entitled to have the right to continue in the shared house, but that is not an independent right that can be claimed against the landlord. It is seen that the definite case of the petitioner in her counter statement is that her husband was the tenant and as his wife she has been residing in the building. In the light of that admission, the petition for eviction filed by the 1st respondent, who undisputedly is the landlord, is certainly maintainable. The Apex Court inSatish Chander Ahu