Back
2013 Supreme(Online)(KER) 9911
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JJ
P.P. BASHEER HAJI – Appellant
Versus
KAMMANA MEETHAL SATHYAN – Respondent
RCRev. 343 2012
SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE, SRI.U.P.BALAKRISHNAN, SRI.K.P.SUDHEER, SRI.ARUN MATHEW VADAKKAN
A landlord's genuine need for eviction may be established through evidence from dependents, and the absence of the landlord's personal testimony does not invalidate the claim.
Headnote:
Eviction - Tenancy - Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act - Section 11(3), Section 11(10), Section 15 - The court held that the landlord demonstrated a genuine bonafide need for eviction under Section 11(3), citing familial ties and previous evidence; the claim's legitimacy was upheld despite objections regarding the landlord's personal examination.
Fact of the Case:
The landlord sought eviction of tenants for a bona fide need for his son's furniture business, contesting the genuineness of their need and highlighting their investment in the property.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the landlord's need to be genuine, despite various contentions from the tenants regarding the hardship and prior disputes with the landlord, while also mitigating the lack of the landlord's personal testimony.
Issues: Whether the landlord's claim for eviction based on bona fide need was legitimate in light of the objections raised by the tenants.
Ratio Decidendi: The need for the landlord's son to set up a furniture business was deemed genuine by analyzing evidence, with the precedent that direct testimony from the landlord was not strictly necessary for establishing bona fide need.
Final Decision: The revision petition is dismissed, granting the tenants until December 31, 2013, to vacate the premises.
O R D E R
Ramachandran Nair, J.
This revision petition is filed by the petitioners who are the tenants, along with respondents 1, 3, 5 and 7 to 9 in R.C.P. No.32/2007 on the file of the Rent Controller/Munsiff, Nadapuram. The fifth respondent herein is the landlord. The concurrent orders passed by the two authorities, viz. the Rent Control Court as well as the Appellate Authority are under challenge herein.
The tenants are doing the business in bakery and fast food service.
2. We heard Shri A. Mohammed Mustaque, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri K.P. Sudheer, learned counsel for the fifth respondent landlord.
3. The landlord sought eviction on the ground under Section 11(3)
of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act (for short 'the Act'), viz. bonafide need. The need set up is on behalf of P.W.1, the son of the landlord who is a dependent of his father, to start a furniture business. It is the case of the landlord that he bonafide requires the building for starting a furniture business for his son. The landlord is working in Gulf countries for more than ten years and he is intending to come back to India within two years. They belong to carpenter family who have sufficient know how in carpentry work. Accordingly, he will be able to assist his son in conducting the furniture business.
4. The tenants contested the matter on various grounds. It was pointed out that the bonafide need alleged is not genuine. It is also pleaded that the landlord is having the up stair portion of the building which will satisfy their demands. For renovating and furnishing the building, the tenants have spent more than Rs.28 lakhs and they will be put to real hardship in the mater. The details regarding various previous litigations have also been pointed out. It is also alleged that the landlord's attempt is to evict the tenants for more reasons than one.
5. Evidence was let in by both sides and the Rent Control Court elaborately considered the matter.
6. P.W.1 is the son of the landlord and Exts.A1 to A4 have been marked apart from Exts.C1 to C3(a). The respondents have examined R.Ws.1 and 2 and Exts.B1 to B5 have been marked.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Muhammed Mustque submitted that even though the findings have been rendered concurrently, one of the important aspects which has come out in the case is that the landlord has not offered himself for examination before the Court which has denied the opportunity to the tenants to cross examine him on the bonafide need pleaded. It is submitted by the learned counsel by relying upon the decision of the Apex Court inVidhyadhar v. Manik Rao Baba Rao {(1999) 3 SCC 583} and that of this Court inRatheesh Kumar v. Jithendra Kumar (2005 (2) KLT 669) that on the special facts of the case the landlord ought to have been examined. It is therefore submitted that the said lacuna being there, the order of eviction cannot be supported. The learned counsel further submitted that Ext.B2 proceedings will show that the tenants have made a security deposit of Rs.7.5 lakhs which is admitted by the landlord in those proceedings and therefore even if eviction is ordered, a direction will have to be given to the landlord to pay the said amount and it should be made conditional that the tenants need vacate the building only if the landlord pays the said amount.
8. The above contentions have been opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents, Shri K.P. Sudheer. He also relied upon various decisions of this Court, viz.Bhaskaran v. Unni (1984 KHC 399) , Devayani v. Pulickaparambil Hamsa Haji (1997 KHC 278) and Lakshmi v. Labban Kunju Ameer Hamsa (2005 (3) KLT 627) to contend for the position that it is not the requirement of the law that the landlord himself should give evidence and the evidence adduced, viz. by examining P.W.1 will be sufficient.
9. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners with regard to the non examination of the landlord, is projected in the light of the plea by th
