Back
2013 Supreme(Online)(KER) 20328
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JJ
A P SREEDHARI SHIVARAJ – Appellant
Versus
ARJUN RADHAKRISHNAN Advocate - K RAKESH ROSHAN, ,K RAKESH ROSHAN,THUSHARA V,C VATHSALAN – Respondent
RENT CONTROL REVISION 49/2013
The court established that subsequent events affecting a bona fide need for eviction must be reconsidered while upholding procedural fairness.
Headnote:
Eviction - Tenancy - Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act - Section 11(3) - The court affirmed the need for a genuine bonafide requirement of residential premises by the landlord, while also considering the relevance of subsequent events affecting the landlord's claims.
Fact of the Case:
The landlord sought eviction on grounds of genuine need for residential accommodation. The tenants challenged the eviction based on the landlord's property acquisition and alleged non-genuine intent.
Finding of the Court:
The Rent Control Court upheld the landlord's claim of bona fide need, which was confirmed by the appellate authority, despite arguments about the landlord's subsequent property purchase.
Issues: Whether the landlord's subsequent property acquisition impacts the bona fide need for eviction under the Act's provisions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that subsequent events relevant to the parties' claims should be considered while ensuring fairness in the proceedings, particularly concerning the genuine need for the premises.
Final Decision: The revision petition is allowed; the case is remanded for fresh consideration.
O R D E R
Ramachandran Nair, J.
Faced with the concurrent orders allowing eviction of an application filed by the first respondent landlord, the tenants have approached this Court by filing this revision petition.
2. The first respondent landlord sought eviction on the ground of bonafide need to occupy the building for residential purpose under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act (for short 'the Act'). The petitioner resisted the same on various grounds.
3. In a nutshell, the plea of the landlord is the following: The petition schedule building along with the adjoining land originally belonged to the mother of the first respondent herein who is an active politician and now the opposition leader in the Kozhikode Corporation. Her right was transferred as per settlement deed No.327/2004 in favour of the landlord, her son. In fact, the mother had filed RCP No.5/1986 on various grounds and the petition was allowed under Section 11(2)(b) of the Act and the execution petition was pending also.
4. The bonafide need projected is that the landlord who is working at United States of America, is faced with termination of his job there and the job contract is only upto October, 2009. Therefore, he will have to discontinue the same and will have to return to India. He decided to settle in Calicut either by pursuing some suitable employment or by setting up his own business. Apart from the petition schedule premises, he has no other house of his own. The parental house where the mother is residing, is not suitable as a lot of people will be thronging daily since his mother is an active politician.
5. It was contended by the petitioners/tenants that the attempt is only to evict the tenants by any means. The mother had failed to obtain an order of eviction on various grounds and the only ground on which it was granted is under Section 11(2)(b) (arrears of rent) and the said order has also been vacated as per order in I.A. No.4067/2000 and the execution petition, viz. E.P.No.37/1997 was also dismissed. It was further contended that the document transferring the right to the landlord, is a sham one. The idea of the landlord to come back from USA is also disputed by the petitioners. It is pointed out that the building in the petition schedule premises is a hut like structure, more than 80 years old and it is not possible to carry out any repair or renovation of the same. Therefore, it is contended that the landlord who is having a much higher status in life, will not settle with the family in the said building.
6. On all these pleas, the parties led evidence. The Rent Control Court found that the bonafide need pleaded is genuine which finding has been confirmed in appeal.
7. One of the aspects raised before the Rent Control Court as well as in the appeal is that the landlord has later purchased, as per Ext.B2 document, 27.85 cents of property with a very good house and therefore he is not entitled for an order of eviction. It was found by the Rent Control Court that the said building is situated in Kuruvattoor Grama Panchayat and therefore the same is not in the same locality so as to attract the first proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. The Appellate Authority was also of the same view.
8. We have heard learned Senior Counsel Shri T. Krishnan Unni, appearing for the petitioners and Shri C. Valsalan, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent.
9. Learned Senior Counsel Shri T. Krishnan Unni appearing for the petitioners submitted the following: It is submitted that the bonafide need pleaded cannot be said to be genuine in the particular background of the petitioner. It has come out in evidence that the landlord, his wife and the child are settled in America. The wife is also employed there. Even though he was apprehending termination in 2009, that did not happen and even, while he was examined in 2011, he has not stated that he was faced with any termination. Therefore, there is no likelihood of the landlord, his wife
