SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 56048

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. Muhamed Mustaque, HARISANKAR V. MENON, JJ
WILSON – Appellant
Versus
VAIJO – Respondent
RCREV. NO. 243 OF 2025 | RCA NO.66 OF 2019 | RCP NO.117 OF 2014



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM, SMT.MARY CATHERINE, PRIYANKA P.S., SHRI.ALEX TOM JOSEPH
For the Respondents: SRI.K.G.BALASUBRAMANIAN

The genuine need of landlords under Section 11(3) of the Act outweighs tenant claims for protection.

Headnote:The revision arose under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, where tenants challenged an eviction order. The court upheld earlier decisions favoring landlords' genuine need for premises for business expansion. Key issues included the validity of tenant claims under the Act and landlords' demonstrated necessity. The court determined that no grounds existed for interfering with the lower findings and dismissed the petition, granting tenants six months to vacate with specified conditions.

A. Muhamed Mustaque, J.

The revision was filed by the tenants. They challenge the order of eviction under Section 11 (3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act , 1965 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’). Both authorities found in favour of the landlords. The landlords are three in number. Their wives had decided to start a business. They were unemployed and therefore thought that starting a business will augment their income. Their intention is to start the business of hospital equipment. The Rent Controller Authority found that their need is genuine. The tenants also run a business in one of the rooms, while the other belongs to the landlords. The Rent Control Authority as well as the appellate authority assessed the pleadings and evidence, and came to the conclusion that the need is genuine. We don’t find any reason to interfere in the findings of the fact. The tenants also failed to invoke protection under the second proviso of (3) of the Act.

Having considered the facts and circumstances, we find no reason to interfere in the findings of the fact. We dismiss the revision petition, granting six months time to the tenants to vacate the premises on the following terms and conditions;

i. The tenants shall file an affidavit before the Rent Control Court or the Execution Court, as the case may be, within one week from today, expressing an unconditional undertaking that they will surrender vacant possession of the petition-scheduled shop room to the landlords on or before 10.06.2026 and that, the tenants shall not induct third parties into possession of the petition-scheduled shop room.

ii. The tenants shall deposit the entire arrears of rent as on date, if any, before the Rent Control Court or the Execution Court, as the case may be, within four weeks from today and shall continue to pay rent for every succeeding month, without any default;

iii. Needless to say, failing to comply with any one of the conditions stated above, the time limit granted by this order to surrender vacant possession of the petition-

scheduled shop room will stand cancelled automatically, and the landlords will be at liberty to proceed with the execution of the order of eviction.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top