The court upheld the eviction based on bonafide need and non-payment of rent, affirming lower court findings.

This Rent Control Revision is filed challenging the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thalassery, in R.C.A. No.70/2024, which arises from the order of the Munsiff Court, Kuthuparamba, in R.C.P. No. 39/2021. The R.C.P. had been filed by the landlord seeking eviction under Section 11 (2) and (3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act , 1965. A claim for enhancing the rent has also been raised therein. The Rent Control Court had, vide order dated 30.03.2024, allowed the R.C.P. holding that the arrears of rent as under (2) had been outstanding and that, a case had been made out for directing eviction on the ground of non payment of arrears of rent. Further, as regards Section

11(3), it was concluded that the bonafide need of the landlord had been validly proved entitling an order of eviction as the said ground too. Thus, under Section 11 (2) (a)(b) and (3), it was held that the landlord is entitled to get vacant possession. As regards the fixation of fair rate, an amount of ₹5000/- was fixed as fair rate after taking note of the contention of the parties.

2. In the Rent Control Appeal that was filed by the petitioner/tenant, the Rent Control Appellate Authority, after detailed consideration of the contentions of both sides, affirmed the findings and concluded, that, as regards Section 11 (2)(b), insofar as the tenant had failed to deposit the rent in time and the rent amounts had been paid only till September, 2025. The Rent Control Appellate Authority, after detailed consideration, concluded that as per (3), the Rent Control Court was justified in finding that the bondafide need of the landlord would prevail over the contentions as raised by the tenant and confirmed the findings in the said respect. The rent enhancement of ₹5000 was also confirmed by the appellate authority. 3. Before us, the tenant/revision petitioner con-

tends that the Rent Control Court had not properly appreci- ated the contentions in Section 11 put forth by the tenant countering the claim of the landlord in (3) insofar as there had been earlier eviction proceedings initiated by the landlord wherein a settlement had been arrived at, whereby, even though the bonafide need raised by the landlord was found in his favour, the building had been leased out to other tenants. Even though a specific contention with respect to the same had been raised before the Rent Control Court, the same was not taken into consideration. It was contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that, it was incumbent on the part of the Rent Control Court as well as the Rent Control Appellate Authority to have looked into the lack of bonafides on the said court as well as the manner in which the landlord had subsequent to the earlier rent control proceedings whereby the total lack of bonafides on his part had been revealed.

4. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respondents also.

Soumen Sen, C.J.

5. Insofar as the bonafide need of the landlord is concerned and the defence that the same is not bonafide was argued in detail by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. On to the discussion made in brief by the Rent Control Court, however, all the important issues have been taken note of in arriving at a finding that the claim of the landlord for eviction on the ground of bonafide need, though the same cannot be said to be lucid. However, Rent Control Appellate Authority has gone into detail upon the same issue which is apparent from paragraph 19 onwards, in which issue No.2 was considered in detail, after taking int