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

2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 56049

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. Muhamed Mustaque, HARISANKAR V. MENON, JJ
PARAPRATH MOHANAN – Appellant
Versus
KUNNAPADI JAYACHANDRAN – Respondent
RCREV. NO. 255 OF 2025 | RCREV. NO. 258 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SMT.BINDUMOL JOSEPH, SRI.VINODKUMAR CHAMBALON, SMT.C.P.GOPIKA
For the Respondents: SRI.ADARSH KURIAN

The court upheld the landlord's right to eviction under the Act based on genuine need and insufficient tenant evidence.

Headnote:These revision petitions are filed under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The landlord sought eviction for starting a business by his wife, demonstrating genuine need. The tenant's attempt to invoke protection failed due to insufficient evidence. The court granted nine months for the tenant to surrender, under stipulated conditions. The court emphasized enforcement of compliance for eviction.

Table of Content
1. tenant's request for protection dismissed due to lack of evidence. (Para 1 , 2)
2. court conditions for surrender including an affidavit and rent payment. (Para 3)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE &

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947 RCREV. NO. 255 OF 2025 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 05.08.2025 IN RCA NO.126 OF 2023 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - IV / RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THALASSERY ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 05.08.2023 IN RCP NO.72 OF 2021 OF MUNSIF COURT, KUTHUPARAMBA REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:

PARAPRATH MOHANAN AGED 69 YEARS S/O. ANDY K P HARDWARE, 6 TH MILE ERUVATTY ROAD P O KOTTAYAMPOYIL THALASSERY TALUK KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN – 670691.

BY ADVS.

SMT.BINDUMOL JOSEPH SRI.VINODKUMAR CHAMBALON SMT.C.P.GOPIKA RESPONDENT / RESPONDENTS & PETITIONER S :

KUNNAPADI JAYACHANDRAN S/O. LATE MATTANGOTT BALAN, AGED 56 YEARS CHANDRAKANTHAM HOUSE P O KOTTAYAMPOYIL THALASSERY TALUK KANNUR DISTRICT-, PIN - 670691 SRI.ADARSH KURIAN THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

10.12.2025, ALONG WITH RENT CONTROL REVISION NO.258 OF 2025 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE &

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947 RCREV. NO. 258 OF 2025 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 05.08.2025 IN RCA NO.131 OF 2023 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - IV / RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THALASSERY ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 05.08.2023 IN RCP NO.73 OF 2021 OF MUNSIF COURT, KUTHUPARAMBA REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO.1:

PARAPRATH MOHANAN AGED 69 YEARS S/O. ANDY K P HARDWARE, 6 TH MILE ERUVATTY ROAD P O KOTTAYAMPOYIL THALASSERY TALUK KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN – 670691.

BY ADVS.

SMT.BINDUMOL JOSEPH SRI.VINODKUMAR CHAMBALON SMT.C.P.GOPIKA RESPONDENT/S:

KUNNAPADI JAYACHANDRAN S/O. LATE MATTANGOTT BALAN AGED 56 YEARS CHANDRAKANTHAM HOUSE P O KOTTAYAMPOYIL THALASSERY TALUK KANNUR DISTRICT-, PIN – 670691.

THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

10.12.2025 ALONG WITH RENT CONTROL REVISION NO.255 OF 2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

A. Muhamed Mustaque, J.

These revision petitions are filed by the tenant challenging the concurrent findings and orders of eviction passed by the Rent Controller and Appellate Authority under Section 11 (3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act , 1965, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’.

2. The landlord sought eviction for starting a business by his wife. Landlord’s wife wants to start business of sanitary and electrical items. It appears that the landlord’s wife is in occupation of other rooms in the building. The court analysed the evidence of the landlord and found that the need projected was genuine. The tenant was unsuccessful in invoking protection under the second proviso of Section 11 (3) of the Act as he failed to adduce any substantial evidence to prove that he was fully depending up on the landlord’s building and that there are no other buildings in the locality to shift his business. The Rent Controller as well as the appellate authority considered and analysed the evidence in proper perspective which do not warrant interference by this Court.

3. The learned counsel for the tenant sought one year time to surrender the building, however, this was opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent.

Having considered the facts, we grant the revision petitioner/tenant nine months time from today to surrender the building, subject to the following conditions;

i. The tenant 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 he will surrender

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top