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) 57806

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. Muhamed Mustaque, HARISANKAR V. MENON, JJ
V.G.JOSE KUTTY – Appellant
Versus
THANKAMMA JOHN – Respondent
RCREV. NO. 111 OF 2018 | RCOP NO.5 OF 2006 | RCA NO.2 OF 2011



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri.B.KRISHNA MANI
For the Respondents: Sri.S.VIDYASAGAR

The bona fide need of landlords for eviction under the Rent Control Act was affirmed, despite tenant's claims disputing the landlord-tenant relationship.

Headnote:The Rent Control Act outlines the landlord-tenant relationship, with the tenant contesting eviction on grounds of non-existence of this relationship, citing unique circumstances. The court upheld the bona fide requirement of landlords, ruling that such claims did not negate the tenant's obligations and highlighting procedural aspects of issue framing in rent control hearings. Considering the bona fide need, the revision was not admitted, allowing three months for the tenant to vacate, contingent on an affidavit being filed.

Table of Content
1. need for procedural clarity in landlord-tenant disputes. (Para 4)

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

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947 RCREV. NO. 111 OF 2018 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN RCOP NO.5 OF 2006 OF MUNSIFF COURT, PUNALUR ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN RCA NO.2 OF 2011 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT -

V, KOLLAM / IV ADDL.M.A.C.T./ RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:

V.G.JOSE KUTTY AGED 68 YEARS, RESIDING AT PMC XIII/139, PUNALUR MUNICIPALITY,VAYALIL VEEDU, PIRAVANTHOOR MURI, PATHANAPURAM TALUK.

BY ADV SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:

*1 THANKAMMA JOHN, W/O MONCY JOHNSON, VAISHAK, CHARLESPURAM BUNGALOW, VANMALA MURI, PIRAVANTHOOR VILLAGE. *DELETED *R1 IS DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AT THE RISK OF THE PETITIONER AS PER ORDER DATED 11.11.2021 IN I.A 2/2021 IN RCR 111/2013.

2 JOHN JOHNSON ALIAS ROBBY, S/O MONCY JOHNSON, VAISAKH, CHARLESPURAM BANGALOW, VANMALA MURI, PIRAVANTHOOR VILLAGE.

BY ADV SRI.S.VIDYASAGAR THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.12.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

A. Muhamed Mustaque, J.

The tenant in this revision, filed in the year 2018, is one among six tenants occupying a row building. The tenant is a lawyer by profession, presently aged 81 years, and is practising at Punalur. The landlords filed a Rent Control Petition seeking eviction on the grounds of arrears of rent, bona fide requirement for reconstruction of the building, and for occupying the reconstructed building as a residential house. The bona fide nature of the requirement was found to be genuine.

2. We have already affirmed the bona fide need of the landlords in connected matters. This revision remained unadmitted for the last seven years. During its consideration, we had the benefit of hearing the learned counsel for the tenant, Sri. Krishnamani, who advanced elaborate submissions with reference to the pleadings. He contended that in the absence of a specific issue framed regarding the existence of the landlord–tenant relationship, particularly when such a relationship was disputed in the pleadings, the Rent Controller could not have concluded that the denial of title was not bona fide. According to the learned counsel, the dispute in the present case was not one relating to the denial of title, but one questioning the very existence of the landlord–tenant relationship, and therefore, both the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority erred in ordering eviction on the grounds raised.

3. We have perused the order passed by the Rent Controller.

Though a specific issue regarding the existence of the landlord–tenant relationship was not framed, the Rent Controller has nonetheless addressed and answered the said contention, holding that such a relationship did exist between the parties. It is true that the procedure prescribed under Order XIV of the Code of Civil Procedure does not strictly apply to proceedings under the Rent Control Act; however, in any adversarial civil proceeding, the framing of specific issues is desirable to arrive at a proper conclusion. Be that as it may, on a reading of the order, it is evident that the objection raised by the tenant has been duly considered and answered.

4. We also take note of the specific pleadings raised by the tenant, which have been extracted in paragraph 11 of the order of the Rent Controller. The tenant’s case is that the landlords were in dire financial need and that the revision petitioner had advanced money to meet the financial expenses of the second respondent herein, on the understanding that upon completion of the proposed construction, the revision petitioner would be put in possession of the newly constructed building. It is further pleaded that until the construction was completed, no rent w

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