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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 6472

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
SOUMEN SEN, CJ, SYAM KUMAR V.M., J
MURALEEDHARAN P P – Appellant
Versus
KUNNOTH KUNHAYISA – Respondent
RCREV. NO. 28 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri.R.K.Muraleedharan, Smt.Athira A.Menon, Shri.Harisankar.K.V., Shri.Anupam Krishna Nambiar

Concurrent findings on bona fide requirement and rent default upheld, addressing claims of tenancy surrender.

Headnote:In a rent control revision petition, the court analyzed the concurrent findings of fact regarding default in rent payment and bona fide requirement based on evidence presented in lower courts. The petitioner argued for a fresh tenancy but was challenged on surrender claims, with the court affirming lower court’s decision on bona fides. The court permitted the petitioner to seek time for vacating the premises from the Execution Court.

Table of Content
1. concurrent findings support eviction due to rent default. (Para 1)
2. claims of tenancy surrender contested based on evidence. (Para 2)
3. court's observation on bona fide requirement highlighted. (Para 3)
4. extension for vacating premises allowed through execution court. (Para 4)

The concurrent findings of fact regarding default in payment of arrears of rent, reasonable bona fide requirement, and reduction in valuation are now being assailed in this revision petition. Both the Rent Control Court as well as the Appellate Authority, on meticulous examination of the oral and documentary evidence, have recorded findings on all counts in favour of the decree holder.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to persuade us to accept that there had been a surrender in favour of the original tenant and that a fresh tenancy was created in favour of the present petitioner by one Ammed Haji, and relied upon Exts. B1 and B5 in this regard.

3. Both the courts have arrived at a definite finding, based on the evidence, that there has been no surrender of tenancy, as the terms and conditions of the deed of surrender have not been complied with and there is nothing to show that possession was actually surrendered in favour of the original tenant. Interestingly, the said agreements, on which reliance has been placed, have not been signed by Ammed Haji, in whose favour it is claimed that the original tenant surrendered the tenancy and thereafter sought to claim a fresh tenancy. Insofar as the bona fide requirement is concerned, the plaintiff has initially discharged the onus, thereafter it shifted to the respondent to prove that there was adequate accommodation available to the plaintiff and that, therefore, the justification for eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement is mala fide. In view thereof, we are not inclined to interfere with the concurrent finding on bona fides against the petitioner, and the revision petition stands dismissed.

4. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that some time may be granted to the petitioner to vacate the premises on such terms and conditions as may be fixed by the Execution Court. It would be open to the petitioner to approach the Execution Court seeking extension of time to vacate the premises, and in the event of any such application being filed, the Execution Court shall decide the said matter after hearing the decree holder.

Sd/-

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