The court affirms the necessity of considering tenants' eviction based on landlords' bona fide needs, emphasizing the limited grounds for revision in such cases.

ORDER

Harisankar V. Menon, J This revision petition is at the instance of the tenant seeking to challenge the order dated 28.11.2025 in RCA No.48 of 2024 of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, ordering eviction under Section 11 (3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short, the ‘Act’), reversing the findings in the order dated 20.07.2024 in RCP No.17 of 2023 of the Rent Control Court, Ernakulam, rejecting the eviction petition filed by the landlords.

2. The respondents-landlords sought for eviction of the tenanted premises under Section 11 (3) of the Act, contending that the father of the 2^nd respondent herein had undergone heart surgery on account of which they required to shift to Thrippunithura, where there are plenty of hospitals. The Rent Control Court refused to accept the bona fide need pointed out as above for want of supporting documents/medical records. In an appeal filed against this order, the appellate authority found that the petition schedule building would be suitable for the shifting of the parents, who were having medical issues. The appellate authoirty found that this cannot be taken as a fanciful wish and mere non-production of documents as regards the treatment would have no crucial significance. It is in such cirucumtances the appellate authority reversed the finding of the Rent Control Court, ordering eviction under (3) of the Act.

3. The challenge in this revision petition is against the findings of the appellate authority as above.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondents.

5. The scope of a revision petition instituted under Section 20 of the Act is very limited, as has been held by the Apex Court inRukmini Amma Saradamma V. Kallyani Sulochana and Others [ (1993) 1 SCC 499 ] and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited V. Dilbahar Singh [ (2014) 9 SCC 78 ]

6. On a careful analysis of the findings contained in the impugned order of the rent control appellate authority, we are of the opinion that no valid reasons have been pointed out by the petitioner herein for interfering with the findings contained therein. The appellate authority has taken into account the totality of the facts and circumstances, as well as the pleadings and evidence on record, and arrived at the conclusion contained therein that the bona fide need stated by the landlords require to be accepted.

7. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment, and this revision petition would stand dismissed.

8. At this juncture, our attention is drawn to the affidavit dated 20.01.2026, sworn to by the petitioner-tenant before this Court, pointing out that she is ready and willing to handover the vacant possession of the building in question on or before 20.10.2026, continuing to pay the rent during the afore period. However, the learned counsel for the respondents-landlords opposed the afore prayer.

Having considered the submissions made as above, we are of the opinion that the revision petitioner be granted six months to vacate the schedule premises, subject to the following conditions:

i. The tenant shall file an undertaking before the Rent Control Court or the Execution Court, as the case may be, within four weeks from today, stating that he will vacate the building within six months from today.

ii. The tenant shall continue to pay the rent till the actual surrender of the building.

Sd/-