The court affirmed a landlord's bona fide need for eviction under the Kerala Rent Control Act, reinforcing the limited scope of revision petitions.

ORDER

Harisankar V. Menon, J This revision petition is at the instance of the tenant under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short, the ‘Act’) seeking to challenge the order dated 11.09.2025 in RCA No.13 of 2024 of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kalpetta, confirming the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court, Kalpetta, in RCP No.5 of 2023.

2. The rent control petition was instituted by the landlord seeking eviction under the provisions of Section 11 (3) of the Act for starting a vegetable business for augmenting the income of the family and also for meeting the educational expenses of his children. Though the petitioner – tenant resisted the prayer for eviction, contending that the landlord has various other vacant rooms, the Rent Control Court found that the afore contention has not been proved in accordance with law. In such circumstances, the bona fide need projected by the landlord was accepted, and an eviction was ordered by the trial court. The appellate court also confirmed the afore order, taking into consideration the submissions made by the tenant with reference to the entitlement under the first and second provisos to Section 11 (3) of the Act. It is in the afore circumstances that the tenant has instituted this revision petition.

3. 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 ]

4. We note that the bona fide need projected by the landlord has been accepted with reference to the pleadings in the revision petition as well as the evidence adduced from his side. Even after cross-examination, the bona fide need projected by the landlord could not be established as unfounded in any manner. We are of the opinion that, in view of the findings contained in the order of the Rent Control Court as confirmed by the appellate authority, no valid reasons for exercising the revisional power are established in the case at hand. In such circumstances, we find no merit in the contentions raised in this revision petition, and the same would stand dismissed.

5. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner would point out that atleast six months’ time may be extended for vacating the tenanted premises. The learned counsel for the respondent opposed the said submission.

Having considered the submissions made as above, we are of the opinion that the revision petitioner be granted five 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 five months from today.

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

Sd/-