O R D E R

Dated this the 09th day of June, 2026

Syam Kumar V.M., J.

This Rent Control Revision has been filed challenging the concurrent findings of the Appellate Authority as well as the Rent Controller that the respondents/landlords are entitled to seek eviction under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short 'the Act') and that the petitioner/tenant shall give vacant possession of the tenanted premises to the landlords.

2. R.C.P.No.58 of 2016 was filed before the Rent Control Court, Tirur by the respondents/landlords invoking Section 11 (3) of the Act. The Rent Control Court, after detailed trial and hearing vide order dated 18.07.2024, concluded that the respondents/landlords have successfully discharged their burden under Section 11(3) of the Act and is entitled to an order of eviction. The said order was challenged in appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Tirur, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 30.03.2026 in R.C.A.No.29 of 2024, confirming the order of eviction rendered by the Rent Control Court. This R.C.Revision is filed by the petitioner/tenant, challenging the said concurrent findings.

3. We heard Sri.C.M.Mohammed Iquabal, Advocate for the revision petitioner and Smt.Deepa Narayanan, Advocate for the respondents/caveators.

4. It is the contention of the revision petitioner/tenant that the finding arrived at by the Rent Controller that the respondents/landlords have established their bona fide need under Section 11(3) of the Act is erroneous and legally unsustainable. It is submitted that the courts below had overlooked the contentions put forth by the petitioner/tenant, especially regarding the inherent unsuitability of the premises for commencing a hotel business, which had been the purpose put forth as the bona fide need of the landlord. The building, it is submitted, is neither structurally sound nor suited for conducting a hotel business. It does not have sufficient parking facilities, which is mandatory for running a hotel business therefrom. The Advocate Commissioner had reported the said aspect, and the same has been vouchsafed by the expert appointed to assist the Commissioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the court below brushed aside the deposition of the witnesses viz., RW1 and RW2, examined by the petitioner/tenant, leading to the erroneous conclusion that a bona fide need had been validly made out by the landlords so as to claim eviction. Specific reference is made to the witness examined on the side of the petitioner/tenant, as RW2, who is the President of the Tirur Chamber of Commerce, who had deposed about a conciliation/settlement attempted between the parties in which a suggestion for rehabilitation of the tenant in the new building proposed had been initially agreed, though later resiled by the landlord. The said aspect, it is submitted, had been suppressed while asserting the bona fide need and since the courts below overlooked the above aspects while concluding in favour of the landlord, it is prayed that the findings may be set aside as sought in the R.C.Revision.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents (landlords) submitted that the concurrent findings of the courts below do not require any interference and that the landlords had effectively discharged their obligation to prove the existence of bona fide need. The courts below had properly appreciated the evidence rendered by the landlords and had unequivocally concluded that the need put forth by the landlords/respondents was bona fide and that they had proved both limbs of Section 11(3) of the Act successfully. Nothing has been produced by the revision petitioner to contradict the said finding; hence, the R.C.Revision is to be dismissed.

6. We have heard both sides in detail and have also considered the respective contentions. It is trite and settled that, to establish a claim for bona fide need under Section 11(3) of the Act, the landlords ha