Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 49310
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Muralee Krishna, J
MUHAMMED RAIZE – Appellant
Versus
NALILA HARIS – Respondent
Rent Control Appeal No.107 of 2023 | RCP No.150 of 2019
For the Appellants/Petitioners: [not specified]
For the Respondents: [not specified]
Bona fide need under Rent Control Act must be genuine; courts may not interfere with concurrent findings in the absence of evidence showing mala fides.
Headnote:(A) Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 - Section 11(3) - Eviction of tenant - Revision petition filed against the order of eviction from petition schedule building - The respondents wish to start a family supermarket; the need projected must be genuine and bona fide - Concurrent findings of the trial court and appellate court deemed correct, lacking evidence of mala fides. (Paras 6, 12, 14)
(B) Rent Control Laws - Bona Fide Need - The requirement for premises should not be a mere desire but a genuine need substantiated with evidence; courts must be cautious against ruses for eviction. (Paras 9, 10)
Facts of the case:
The revision petitioner seeks to contest the eviction based on claims of lack of bona fide need from the landlords, who wish to utilize the premises for a family-run business, despite evidence suggesting prior attempts for eviction.
Findings of Court:
The need of the landlords for business was accepted; both courts found that evidence did not substantiate tenant's claims of mala fides against the landlords.
Issues: Determining the genuineness of the landlords’ need for eviction and whether it was indeed bona fide.
Ratio Decidendi: Courts upheld that evidence was requisite to prove bona fide needs; the need projected by the landlords was not merely a pretext for eviction.
Result: Revision petition dismissed with conditions.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. tenant filed for revision against eviction order under specific act. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. evidence presented from both parties at trial. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. assessment on whether findings were perverse or illegal. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. concept of bona fide need and courts’ constraints on evidentiary review. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 5. final decision on dismissing petition and conditions for tenant. (Para 12 , 14) |
Muralee Krishna, J.
The tenant who suffered order of eviction under Section 11 (3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 , (‘the Act’ for short) filed this revision petition under Section 20 of the said Act, challenging the judgment dated 28.07.2025 passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thalassery, in Rent Control Appeal No.107 of 2023 and the order of eviction dated 17.06.2023 of the Rent Control Court, Kannur, in RCP No.150 of 2019.
2. The petition schedule building was gifted to respondents 1 and 2 by their mother, the 3rd respondent, as per Settlement Deed No.2872 of 2012 of SRO, Kannur. As per the said Settlement Deed, the 3rd respondent reserved a life interest to receive the rent of the building, along with her husband. There are five rooms on the ground floor and four rooms on the first floor of the building. One room on the ground floor and the four rooms on the first floor are vacant. Previously, the 3rd respondent filed RCP No.85 of 2017 for eviction of the revision petitioner-tenant, which, according to the respondents, was under the bona fide impression that since the 3rd respondent had a life interest, she could file a Rent Control Petition as if she was the owner of the building. However, in order to avoid legal complications and to prevent the said RCP being dismissed on account of formal defect, the 3rd respondent withdrew RCP No.85 of 2017. Later, respondents 1 and 2 filed the present RCP, i.e. RCP No.150 of 2019, to evict the revision petitioner from the four rooms occupied by him wherein he is conducting a steel business under the name and style ‘Steel Emporium’. According to the respondents, they want to start a supermarket by utilising all the rooms on the ground floor. The intention of the respondents is to start the said supermarket as a family business, and it will be run and managed by the 4th respondent. It is pleaded in the Rent Control Petition that the 3rd and the 4th respondents have no building of their own, and they are depending upon respondents 1 and 2 for the building. The necessary pleadings pertaining to the second Proviso to Section 11 (3) of the Act were also incorporated in the Rent Control Petition.
3. The revision petitioner-tenant resisted the Rent Control Petition by filing a counter, contending that the respondents have no bona fide need for the petition schedule building. Previously, the 3rd respondent had filed RCP No.85 of 2017, falsely representing that she was the owner of the petition schedule building. When the same was revealed, she withdrew the said RCP on 17.06.2019. The respondents have several buildings and businesses in and around the locality of the petition-schedule building, and also in Bangalore. Respondents 3 and 4 are permanently settled at Vadakara and therefore, the need canvassed is nothing but a ruse for eviction. The benefit of the first and second Provisos to Section 11 (3) was also claimed by the revision petitioner-tenant.
4. Before the Rent Control Court, the 4th respondent was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A3 documents were marked. The revision petitioner gave evidence as RW1, and Exts.B1 to B9 documents were marked from his side.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.
6. The only point that requires consideration in this Rent Control Revision Petition is whether there is any material to show that the concurrent findings of the trial court, as well as the appellate court, are suffering from any perversity or gross illegality, which warrants interference o
