Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 8559
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, P. G. Ajithkumar, JJ
NADUVILAKANDY JOSHY – Appellant
Versus
MRS. POONATHUM PURAYIL KARIPPOLI KADEESUMMA – Respondent
RCRev./397/2017
SRINATH GIRISH P, JERIL BABU, SMT. T.RASINI
The court reaffirmed that a landlord's bona fide need is a valid ground for eviction under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, provided no contrary evidence is presented.
Headnote:
Eviction - Rent Control - Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (Sections 11(3), 11(4)(iii), 18(1)(b), 20) - The court upheld the eviction order, affirming that the landlord's bona fide need aligns with statutory provisions and established interpretations, precluding tenant protections under certain conditions.
Fact of the Case:
The tenant challenged an eviction order under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act after the landlord's request asserting bona fide need was upheld by lower courts.
Finding of the Court:
The court concurred with previous findings that the landlord's need was genuine and that the tenant did not sufficiently demonstrate entitlement to protection under the Act's provisions.
Issues: Whether the eviction order was justifiable under the bona fide requirement outlined in Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the landlord's bona fide need must be genuine, and the tenant's claims under the first and second provisos of Section 11(3) were not substantiated.
Final Decision: Rent Control Revision Petition dismissed with six months' time granted for tenant to vacate.
ORDER
Anil K. Narendran, J.
The petitioner is the respondent-tenant in R.C.P.No. 43 of
2015 on the file of the Rent Control Court (Munsiff), Koyilandy, a petition filed by the respondent herein-landlady under Sections 11 (3) and 11(4)(iii) of Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 , seeking eviction of the tenant from the petition schedule building. The Rent Control Court by the order dated 27.10.2016 granted an order of eviction under Section 11 (3) of the Act and the tenant was directed to put the landlady in possession of the petition schedule building within two months. The order of eviction sought for under Section
11(4)(iii) of the Act was declined.
2. Feeling aggrieved by the order of eviction granted by the Rent Control Court under Section 11 (3) of the Act, the tenant filed R.C.A.No.299 of 2016 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority (1st Additional District Judge), Kozhikode, invoking the provisions under Section 18 (1)(b) of the Act. That appeal ended in dismissal by the judgment dated 02.08.2017, thereby confirming the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court under (3) of the act. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment dated 02.08.2017 of the Appellate Authority in R.C.A.No.299 of 2016 and the order of the Rent Control Court dated 27.10.2016 in R.C.P.No.43 of 2015, the petitioner- tenant is before this Court in this Rent Control Revision filed under Section 20 of the Act.
3. On 05.12.2017, when this Rent Control Revision came up for admission, this Court admitted the matter on file and issued notice to the respondent-landlady by speed post. In I.A.No.3137 of 2017, this Court granted an interim stay of all further proceedings in E.P.No.130 of 2017 in R.C.P.No. 43 of 2015 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Koyilandy, for a period of one month. The said interim order, which was extended from time to time, was in force till 01.03.2018.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant and also the learned counsel for the respondent-landlady. 5. The issue that arises for consideration in this Rent Control Revision is as to whether any interference is warranted on the order of eviction granted by the Rent Control Court under Section 11 (3) of the Act in the order dated 27.10.2016 in R.C.P.No.43 of 2015, which stands confirmed by the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority dated
02.08.2017 in R.C.A.No.299 of 2016.
6. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant would confine the challenge made in this Rent Control Revision against the finding of the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority on the first proviso to Section 11 (3) of the Act.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant would contend that the finding of the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority on the first proviso to Section 11 (3) of the Act cannot be sustained in law, in view of the evidence on record, i.e., Ext.B1 reply by the Public Information Officer, Chemanchery Grama Panchayat, and also the admission in the oral testimony of the daughter of the landlady, who was examined as PW1.
8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent-
landlady would contend that the reasoning of the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority for granting an order of eviction under Section 11 (3) of the Act, based on the finding that the need projected in the Rent Control Petition is bona fide; the first proviso to (3) of the Act has no application on the facts of the case; and that the tenant is not entitled to the protection of the second proviso to (3) of the Act, warrants no interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 20 of the Act.
9. Section 11 of the Act deals with eviction of tenants.
As per Section 11 (1), notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract a tenant shall not be evicted, whether in execution of a decree or otherwise, except in accordance with the provisions of this Act. As per (3) of t
