Back
2017 Supreme(Online)(KER) 44534
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
K.HARILAL, A.M.BABU, JJ
DR P SUJATHA – Appellant
Versus
H S E AMEER FAIZAL – Respondent
RENT CONTROL REVISION 386/2017
Strained landlord-tenant relationships do not alone prove oblique motives for eviction where bonafide needs are evidenced.
Headnote:
Eviction - Tenant Rights - Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act - Sections 11(3), 20 - The court upheld the landlord's bonafide need for eviction, emphasizing the tenant's failure to prove oblique motives and the existence of alternative accommodations.
Fact of the Case:
The tenant faced eviction under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Act, where the landlord claimed bonafide needs for business. The tenant argued the eviction was motivated by oblique motives due to strained relationships and availability of other rooms.
Finding of the Court:
The court affirmed the prior findings that the landlord's need was bonafide, rejecting claims of oblique motives from the tenant, and found that alternative accommodations for the tenant were not adequately proven.
Issues: Whether the eviction was justified under Section 11(3) due to the landlord's bonafide need, and whether the tenant proved oblique motives or availability of alternative accommodations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that strained relationships do not inherently indicate oblique motives in eviction claims, especially when the landlord's needs are adequately supported by evidence.
Final Decision: The revision petition for eviction was dismissed with a seven-month grace period for the tenant to vacate.
O R D E R
K. Harilal J.
The revision petitioner is the tenant who is confronting with an order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court under Section 11 (3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (in short, 'the Act'), which stands confirmed in appeal. According to the landlord, he bonafide needs the petition schedule building for staring a business of readymade garments and churidar materials. His wife is an expert kids-ware tailor. Earlier, he was employed abroad and now he has lost his job and presently he has no avocation for the livelihood of his family. He has no other vacant buildings of his own in his possession. Hence he requested the petition schedule room for his bonafide need. Several rooms are available in the locality for rent.
2. The tenant resisted the claim for eviction under Section 11 (3) of the Act, contending that the rent control petition was filed with oblique motive to see that she is evicted from the petition scheduled room, as the relationship between the landlord/tenant is very strained.
The landlord was trying to evict her from the schedule room by cutting her amenities and she was compelled to approach the Accommodation Controller for restoring the same. Even though, the Accommodation Controller has passed an order restoring the amenities provided to her, the landlord was not willing to execute the said order. In short, the rent control petition is a ruse for eviction only. Further, there is no need to start such a business as he is very affluent as he was employed abroad. He has rented out seven other shop rooms in the ground floor to different tenants and no eviction proceedings has been initiated against any tenant other than the respondent.
The schedule room is in the upper floor and is not suitable for housing the garment business. The respondent is a Dental Surgeon and she herself is eking out her livelihood by her practice as a Dentist and she has no other income and no other suitable buildings are available in the locality to shift the clinic.
3. On the aforesaid pleadings, both parties adduced evidence and on appreciation of evidence, the rent control court found that the respondent failed to prove any kind of oblique motive behind the rent control petition and the need projected in the petition is of bonafide. So also, it was found that the respondent is not entitled to get protection under the second proviso to Section 11 (3) of the Act. In the appeal, the appellate court also confirmed the aforesaid findings and dismissed the appeal.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. 5. The sum and substance of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the evidence available on record would show that the eviction proceedings were initiated against the respondent with oblique motive as the relationship between the petitioner and the respondent was a strained one. Secondly, it is contended that during the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner has got vacant possession of another room in the ground floor, but the same was rented out to another tenant for higher rent. Had the need been a bonafide one, certainly the petitioner could have started the readymade garment business in the shop room, which was rented out to the tenant during the pendency of the appeal. Even though, the respondent has filed application before the appellate authority to issue a Commission to ascertain the availability of another room in the ground floor and subsequent rental arrangement with another tenant, the said application was also dismissed and thereby she was prevented from bringing the subsequent events having fundamental effect on the bonafide need of the petitioner, in evidence.
6. First of all we must remind ourselves the limited scope and extent of jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Rent Control Act, which is confined to legality, propriety and regularity of the findings of the courts below. The responden
