A landlord may seek eviction under section 11(3) for bona fide needs, including legalizing prior illegal constructions, without being seen as benefiting from wrongdoing.

O R D E R

A.Muhamed Mustaque, J.

The Landlady's attempt to evict two tenants for the need of her husband to create an open space for a building constructed by the husband on an adjacent land has been successful. The husband intends to occupy the land after the demolition of the tenanted premises. The tenants have come up with these revisions. The rent control petitions were tried by the Rent Controller in different proceedings. As a result, divergent findings were made by the Rent controller. However, the appellate authority heard the matter together and passed an order allowing eviction sought by the landlady under Section 11 (3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control)Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”).

2. The learned counsel for the tenants, Shri Abraham George Jacob, ably argued the matter in extenso and submitted that the appellate authority misread Section 11 (3) of the Act by allowing eviction. According to the learned counsel, the need projected was for the husband to occupy the tenanted premises after demolition, for creating an open space for a building illegally constructed by the husband in the adjacent land. By elaborating his argument, he submits that a need cannot be termed as ‘bona fide’ to take advantage of a wrong committed by constructing an illegal building. He further submits that the husband had let out his building to the tenants and, therefore, the need is actually to ensure the occupancy of the building by those tenants under the husband. He also submits that (3) is not attracted in as much as that the occupancy was not for the husband but for those tenants under him.

3. Per contra, the learned counsel for the landlady submits that the need arose essentially when the Municipality cancelled the occupancy certificate of the adjacent building belonging to the husband as it was found that the building was constructed without the required open space. Hence, it is submitted that in order to comply with the Municipal Building Rules, the building in occupation of the tenants are required to be demolished. The learned counsel further submits that the land after demolition of the existing building will be retained as an open space for the building constructed by the husband, and the husband will occupy that land for his building. He submits that it is not for the tenants under the husband, rather, the land is required for the husband himself.

4. The facts leading to this case are as follows:

The husband of the landlady approached the Kottayam Municipality for construction of a building on his land which is adjacent to the tenanted premises. In the application, the landlady was also joined. This was the reason that the tenanted premises were shown as the buildings to be demolished. Apparently, in that application, the area of the tenanted premises of the landlady was shown, to comply with the building rules for the proposed construction of the husband. The Municipality granted permission on 27/8/2005. It appears that the husband of the landlady abandoned the originally proposed construction. According to the landlady, since the tenants refused to surrender the building, the husband had abandoned the construction in accordance with the plan submitted to the Municipality. The husband thereafter, submitted a fresh plan. In this fresh plan, the buildings occupied by the tenants were not shown. The plan was approved on 29/12/2007. Based on the permit granted, the husband completed the construction of the building in 2009 and obtained the occupancy certificate on 12/6/2009. Thereafter, on 29/6/2013, the Municipality issued a memo stating that the construction was carried out in violation of the building permit. The Municipality issued an order of demolition and thereafter, cancelled the occupancy certificate on 18/7/2013. The challenge made by the husband of the landlady before the Tribunal for the Local Self Government Institutions was also unsuccessful. If the building in occupancy of the tenant