Bona fide need can be established without financial dependency, and unauthorized sub-letting constitutes grounds for eviction under the Act.

O R D E R

Anil K. Narendran, J.

The petitioner is the 1st respondent-tenant in R.C.P.No.71 of

2016 on the file of the Rent Control Court (Munsiff), Vatakara and the appellant in R.C.A.No.66 of 2018 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Additional District Judge), Vatakara. The landlords, namely, Shri. Kuzhichalil Abdurahiman and his wife Smt. Jameela (1st respondent herein) filed R.C.P.No.71 of 2016 before the Rent Control Court, under Section 11 (3) and 11(4)(i) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 , seeking eviction of the tenant from the petition schedule shop room covered by Ext.A1 kachit dated 02.12.2000. The bona fide need projected in the Rent Control Petition, in order to seek an order of eviction under (3) of the Act, was that of Shri. Kuzhichalil Abdurahiman and his wife Smt. Jameela for starting jewellery business in the petition schedule shop room and also the adjacent shop room. In the Rent Control Petition, an order of eviction was also sought for under (4)(i) of the Act, on the ground that the tenant transferred possession of the petition schedule shop room to the 2nd respondent herein; the alleged sub-tenant, without the knowledge and consent of the landlords, in violation of the terms of Ext.A1 kachit.

2. Before the Rent Control Court, the tenant and the alleged sub-tenant entered appearance and filed a joint counter statement, contending that the 2nd respondent is only an employee of the tenant. They have also denied the bona fide need projected in the Rent Control Petition. On the side of the landlords, Kuzhichalil Abdurahiman was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A5 series were marked. The tenant was examined as RW1. The report and plan of the Advocate Commissioner were marked as Exts.C1 and C2.

3. After considering the pleadings and evidence on record, the Rent Control Court found that the bona fide need projected in the Rent Control Petition under Section 11 (3) of the Act is genuine. Since the landlords are not in possession of any other suitable and convenient building for the proposed business, the tenant is not entitled to the benefit of the first proviso to (3) of the Act. The tenant as RW1 has admitted that he has other source of income. During cross examination, RW1 has admitted that vacant rooms are available in the locality. Therefore, the Rent Control Court found that the tenant is not entitled to protection under the second proviso to (3) of the Act. On the ground of eviction sought for under (4)(i) of the Act, the Rent Control Court found that the tenant has transferred possession and exclusive right of the petition schedule shop room to the sub-tenant, after collecting some amount. Therefore, the landlords are found entitled for an order of eviction under (4)(i) of the Act. Accordingly, the Rent Control Court, by the order dated 26.02.2018, allowed R.C.P.No.71 of 2016 under (3) and 11(4)(i) of the Act and the tenant was directed to put the landlords in vacant possession of the petition schedule shop room, within two months from the date of order.

4. Challenging the order of eviction granted in R.C.P.No.71 of 2016, the tenant filed R.C.A.No.66 of 2018, before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Vatakara. During the pendency of that appeal, Kuzhichalil Abdurahiman died and his legal heirs were impleaded as supplemental respondents 3 to 6, by the order dated 19.11.2019 in I.A.No.44 of 2019. The Rent Control Appellate Authority, by the judgment dated 18.12.2019, dismissed R.C.A.No.66 of 2018, thereby confirming the order of eviction granted by the Rent Control Court under Section 11 (3)

and 11(4)(i) of the Act.

5. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority and also the order of the Rent Control Court, the tenant has filed this Rent Control Revision, invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 20 of the Act.

6. On 29.01.2021, when this Rent Control Revision came up for admission, this Court issued not