Back
2013 Supreme(Online)(KER) 45788
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JJ
MAHADEVAN – Appellant
Versus
NARAYANA PILLAI Advocate - JOBY CYRIAC ,JOBY CYRIAC – Respondent
RENT CONTROL REVISION 78/2013
The court affirmed that a landlord can evict a tenant based on proving bona fide need under the Rent Control Act, regardless of tenant's title disputes.
Headnote:
Eviction - Tenant - Act 2 of 1965 - Sections 11(2)(b), 11(3) - Court upheld eviction order due to bona fide need of landlord, confirming tenant's lack of valid contention regarding title dispute and landlord-tenant relationship.
Fact of the Case:
The tenant was ordered to be evicted from a property after the landlord invoked specific provisions of the Rent Control Act, highlighting disputes over title and landlord-tenant relations raised by the tenant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found in favor of the landlord, confirming the Rent Control Court's order for eviction based on bona fide need for business, rejecting tenants' contentions regarding title.
Issues: Whether the eviction order was justified based on the bona fide need of the landlord and whether proper parties were joined in the proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the landlord established a bona fide need for eviction under the relevant provisions of the Act, and all claims by the tenant regarding title were dismissed.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed, allowing the landlord's eviction order to stand.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI THURSDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST 2013/10TH SRAVANA, 1935 R.C.R.NO.78 OF 2013 ()
-------------------------
(AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 20-11-2011 IN RCA. NO.1/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY (DISTRICT JUDGE), ALAPPUZHA, AGAINST THE ORDER IN RCP. NO.10/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE RENT CONTROL COURT, CHERTHALA.)
REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT: --------------------------------------------
MAHADEVAN, S/O. MADHAVAN, AGED 43 YEARS, MADAKKUNNELAYA THEKKEVALLIKKATTU (THATTAKKUNNEL), KURUPPANKULANGARA P.O., KADAKKARAPPALLY MURI, DO- VILLAGE, CHERTHALA THALUK.
BY ADVS.SRI.C.K.SAJEEV, SRI.M.V.BAIJU.
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------ NARAYANA PILLAI, S/O. KESAVA PILLAI, AGED 72 YEARS, VELIYIL FROM CHALANGATTU, KADAKKARAPPALLY MURI, KADAKKARAPPALLY VILLAGE, CHERTHALA-688529.
R1 BY ADV.SRI.JOBY CYRIAC.
THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-08-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &
A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
R.C.R No.78 of 2013 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 1st day of August, 2013
ORDER
Ramachandran Nair, J.
The revision petitioner is the tenant. He was the sole respondent in R.C.P No.10 of 2007 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Cherthala. The respondent/landlord filed the eviction petition invoking Sections 11 (2)(b) and 11(3) of Act 2 of 1965. The Rent Control Court ordered eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act and the Appellate Authority concurred with the same.
2. We heard the learned counsel on both sides.
3. The order passed by the Rent Control Court will show that certain disputes regarding the title of the landlord were also raised by the tenant. According to the tenant, one Kesavan constructed the building using his own funds and the tenant, who is the son of the brother of Kesavan was also residing there. On his death, the father of the tenant Madhavan became his legal heir and Madhavan died on 23.2.2008. He had wife and five children. It was contended that there was no landlord- tenant relationship between Kesavan and Devadetha Shenoy from whom the landlord purchased the property. It was also contended that Kesavan never paid any amount as rent to the landlord herein. Various other contentions were also raised.
4. PW1 was examined on the side of the landlord and Exts.A1 to A9 have been marked. DWs.1 to 3 on the side of the tenant was examined and Exts.B1 to B13 have been marked. Exts.C1 and C2 have also been marked which are the reports submitted by the Advocate Commissioners appointed.
5. As far as point No.1 viz., whether the petitioner is bad for non-
joinder of necessary parties, the said issue was decided as a preliminary point in order dated 8.7.2008. The issue regarding the denial of title was also found against as per another order dated 14.7.2008. The bona fide need pleaded was found in favour of the landlord. He wanted the building to be vacated for conducting business in building materials. It was found by the Rent Control Court in paragraph (11) that the objections raised by the tenant in that regard have no basis and, therefore, the landlord is entitled for eviction. On the two limbs of second proviso to Section 11 (3), the findings were against the tenant, as evidenced from the said paragraph. These findings have been confirmed by the Appellate Authority in the detailed order passed.
6. In fact, the Appellate Authority has also referred to the finding with regard to the claim of Kudikidappu under Section 125 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act raised by the petitioner in O.S No.1010 of 1996, where in it was found against. All the issues relating to the title of landlord and landlord-tenant relationship have, therefore, attained a finality.
7. On the plea of the bona fide need the Appellate Authorit
