The tenant must prove entitlement to eviction protections, and the landlord's requirements must be established as bona fide for eviction under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act.

Jobin Sebastian, J.

This Rent Control Revision is filed by the respondent/tenant in R.C.P. No.3/2018 on the file of the Rent Control Court (Munsiff), North Paravur. The aforesaid R.C.P. was filed by the respondent herein, the landlord, under Sections 11 (2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), seeking eviction of the tenant.

2. The Rent Control Court, after considering the pleadings and the evidence on record, passed an order of eviction on the ground of arrears of rent, but declined to grant eviction on the ground of bona fide need under Section 11 (3) of the Act. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the petition under (3), the landlord approached the Rent Control Appellate Authority by filing R.C.A. No.19/2024. The respondent/tenant, who was aggrieved by the order of eviction passed under (2)(b), filed a cross-objection in the said appeal.

3. The Rent Control Appellate Authority, after hearing both sides and considering the evidence on record, allowed the appeal filed by the landlord, ordered eviction under Section 11 (3) of the Act, and dismissed the cross-objection filed by the tenant. Impugning the said judgment, the present Rent Control Revision has been filed.

4. Before delving into the question regarding the legality and propriety of the impugned order, it is to be noted that the landlord–tenant relationship between the parties is not in dispute. As already stated, the landlord filed the Rent Control Petition seeking eviction of the revision petitioner, the tenant of the building, on the grounds of arrears of rent and bona fide need.

5. The Rent Control Court, after holistically considering the oral and documentary evidence, including the rent deed, entered a finding that the agreed monthly rent of the building was ₹5,000/-. The Court also accepted the case of the landlord that rent was in arrears from February

2016 onwards.

6. Although the tenant contended that the default commenced only from January 2017, no documents or receipts evidencing payment of rent from February 2016 to January 2017 were produced. In the absence of any such evidence, the bald contention of the tenant that rent was paid for the said period cannot be accepted.

7. The tenant further contended that the arrears from January

2017 were not due to his default, but because the landlord was reluctant to accept the rent. This contention was rightly found to be unsustainable by both the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority, as the tenant failed to establish that he had resorted to any of the statutory modes of payment contemplated under Section 9 of the Act when the landlord allegedly refused to accept rent.

8. In short, the concurrent finding of the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority that rent of the petition schedule building was in arrears, attracting eviction under Section 11 (2)(b) of the Act, suffers from no illegality or infirmity.

9. The remaining question that arises for consideration is whether the finding of the Rent Control Appellate Authority granting eviction under Section 11 (3) of the Act warrants interference.

10. In the Rent Control Petition, it is pleaded that the landlord’s son, who was working abroad, is now unemployed and intends to start a business in the petition schedule shop room after evicting the tenant. Undisputedly, to succeed under Section 11 (3) of the Act, the landlord m