Back
2011 Supreme(Online)(KER) 26136
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ
ELSY JACOB WO LATE JACOB – Appellant
Versus
DR JOJO JOHN – Respondent
RENT CONTROL REVISION 193/2011
The court reaffirmed that bona fide needs asserted by landlords for eviction under the Rent Control Act must be supported by convincing evidence, which was sufficiently demonstrated in this case.
Headnote:
Eviction - Tenancy - Rent Control Act - Sections 11(3), 11(4)(ii), 11(4)(iv) - The court upheld the eviction of tenants based on bona fide requirement for reconstruction for personal use, found evidence sufficient, and denied revision, emphasizing that concurrent findings warranted such a decision.
Fact of the Case:
The landlords sought eviction of tenants under various sections of the Rent Control Act, asserting the property was needed for personal use after reconstruction for a dental clinic. Tenants contested the bona fides of the landlords' requirement.
Finding of the Court:
Both the Rent Control Court and Appellate Authority supported the landlords, confirming their need for the property was genuine after careful evaluation of the evidence presented. The appellate court dismissed the tenants' appeals.
Issues: Whether the landlords' requirement for eviction is bona fide as per the provisions of the Rent Control Act, and whether the lower courts appropriately appreciated the evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the requirement of the landlords was genuinely established as bona fide, and both lower courts' concurrent findings based on legal evidence were unassailable under the Rem Control Act.
Final Decision: All revision petitions are dismissed with the provision of time till 31/1/2012 for vacating the premises, subject to certain conditions.
O R D E R
Balakrishnan, J.
The tenants are in revision. The landlords are same in all these cases. Eviction was sought under Section 11 (3), 11(4)(ii) and 11(4)(iv) of the Act. It was contended by the landlords that the petition schedule building in these cases are required for own occupation of the landlords after reconstructing the same. The need projected was for conducting a dental clinic and use the building as an office of the 2nd respondent landlord after reconstructing the building. The need of the landlords was resisted by the tenants.
2. After appreciating the evidence adduced by both sides, the Rent Control Court passed an order of eviction under Section 11 (3) and also under Section 11 (4)(iv) of the Act. The appeals filed by the tenants/revision petitioners were dismissed by the learned Appellate Authority after a thorough reappraisal of the evidence. The tenants in these revision petitions contended that the courts below have not appreciated the evidence properly. It is noticed that the revision petitions filed by the other tenants have already been dismissed by this court as per the order dated 20/12/2010. It was found in that case also that the need projected by the landlords is bona fide. Both the courts below after analysing the evidence found that the need set up by the landlords is bona fide. Such a finding was tendered on the basis of the legal evidence. Sitting in revision under Section 20 of the Act, we find no reason to upset the concurrent finding entered by the two courts below. Hence, all these revisions are dismissed.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners would submit that one year's time may be granted to the revision petitioners to vacate the petition schedule building. This request is opposed by the learned counsel for the landlords. It is pointed out that the other tenants are granted time only upto 31/12/2011 and as such it will be difficult for the landlords to reconstruct the building, since the entire building has to be demolished for reconstruction. However, we are inclined to grant time to the revision petitioners till 31/1/2012 on the following conditions;
The revision petitioners shall file affidavits within three weeks from today undertaking that they will surrender vacant possession of the petition schedule building to the landlords on or before 31/1/2012 and undertaking further that they will discharge the entire arrears of rent if any within one month from today and further that they will continue to pay occupational charges at the contractual rate as and when the same falls due till they surrender possession of the building.
It is made clear that the revision petitioners will get benefit of time granted above only if they file affidavit within three weeks from today and honour the undertakings made therein.
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE dpk
