1. Eviction proceedings under rent control legislation initiated on grounds of bona fide need for business occupation. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 66437
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Sathish Ninan, P. Krishna Kumar, JJ
Tharammal Firose – Appellant
Versus
Kallingal Kasim – Respondent
RCREV. NO. 172 OF 2024|RCA NO.155 OF 2019|RCP NO.67 OF 2017
Important Points
The court held that eviction for bonafide need is justified when the landlord's choice of business is reasonable and the tenant fails to prove hardship or the availability of alternative premises under the provisos of Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965.
Subject
Property Law - Rent Control
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Rent Control - Bonafide Need - Landlord's choice of business - The suitability of the premises for a specific business, such as a textile shop in an area surrounded by meat shops, is the landlord's prerogative and does not negate the bonafide need for eviction. (Para 5)
(B) Rent Control - Section 11(3) - First Proviso - Availability of alternative premises - Premises that have been sold are not considered vacant or available to the landlord at the time of filing the petition, thus the first proviso is not attracted. (Para 6)
(C) Rent Control - Section 11(3) - Second Proviso - Hardship to Tenant - To seek protection under the second proviso, the tenant must provide evidence of dependence on the business for livelihood and demonstrate active efforts to find alternative suitable accommodation in the locality. (Para 7, 8)
Issues: Whether the eviction order based on the bonafide need of the landlord under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, was sustainable.
(B) Rent Control - Section 11(3) - First Proviso - Availability of alternative premises - Premises that have been sold are not considered vacant or available to the landlord at the time of filing the petition, thus the first proviso is not attracted. (Para 6)
(C) Rent Control - Section 11(3) - Second Proviso - Hardship to Tenant - To seek protection under the second proviso, the tenant must provide evidence of dependence on the business for livelihood and demonstrate active efforts to find alternative suitable accommodation in the locality. (Para 7, 8)
Issues: Whether the eviction order based on the bonafide need of the landlord under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, was sustainable.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Deepa Narayanan, K. Sujai Sathian, Preethi. P.V., Mary Liya Sabu, Aiswarya S. Ashokan, T. Sethumadhavan (Sr.)
For the Respondents: K. Shahzad, Najah Ebrahim V.P.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Deepa Narayanan, K. Sujai Sathian, Preethi. P.V., Mary Liya Sabu, Aiswarya S. Ashokan, T. Sethumadhavan (Sr.)
For the Respondents: K. Shahzad, Najah Ebrahim V.P.
Table of Contents
2. Tenant contended absence of bona fide need due to landlord age, lack of experience, unsuitable location, and availability of alternative accommodation. (Para 3 , 4 )
3. Court held landlord has sole discretion to select business, age factor does not invalidate need, and failure to establish bona fide intent was not proven. (Para 5 , 6 )
4. A tenant claiming protection under second proviso to Section 11(3) must prove dependence on business income and lack of alternative available accommodation. (Para 7 , 8 )
5. Revision dismissed; eviction confirmed with six months granted for surrender of possession subject to filing an undertaking affidavit. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 )
6. Can a landlord's choice of business be challenged on grounds of age or experience?
No. The court maintains that it is the landlord's personal choice to pursue any business in their own building, and age does not per se disqualify one from conducting business. (Para 5 )
7. What must a tenant prove to invoke the protection of the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act?
The tenant must demonstrate through substantive evidence that they depend entirely on the business income for their livelihood and must establish via localized inquiry that no other suitable accommodation is available. (Para 7 , 8 )
8. Under what conditions can the appellate court grant a stay on an eviction order during revision proceedings?
The court may grant time for vacation upon the tenant filing an unconditional undertaking affidavit to surrender possession within a specified period and continuing to pay rent during that occupancy. (Para 11 )
THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 09.10.2026, THE COURT ON 12.10.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
SATHISH NINAN & P. KRISHNA KUMAR, JJ.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
R.C.Rev. No.172 of 2024
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 12th day of October, 2026
ORDER
Sathish Ninan, J.
1. The tenant is in revision challenging the order of eviction under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).
2. The rent control petition was filed seeking eviction under Section 11 (2) (b), Section 11 (3) and Section 11 (4) (i) of the Act. The Rent Control Court upheld the claim under Section 11 (3) of the Act and negatived the other two grounds. Challenging the order, the tenant filed R.C.A.No.155 of 2019 and, as against the grounds negatived, the landlord filed a cross objection therein. The Appellate Authority concurred with the findings of the Rent Control Court. In the light of the above, the question that arises for determination in this revision is only with regard to the finding on Section 11 (3) of the Act.
3. The bonafide need pleaded is for the occupation of the 2nd petitioner, who was abroad and has returned to his native place. He intends to commence a ready-made garment shop in the petition schedule room.
4. According to the tenant, the shop room in question is surrounded by several meat vending shops and hence, it is not suitable to conduct the textile business. The need set up was challenged, contending that the 2nd petitioner is aged 62 years and had no prior experience in the textile business.
5. Before the Rent Control Court, PWs 1 and 2 were examined, PW2 being the 2nd petitioner. He has deposed about his bonafide need for the premises, for doing the business. The Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority have found that nothing could be brought out from the evidence of PW2 to discredit him. He having returned to his native place after quitting his job abroad, the need projected by him cannot be said to be lacking bonafides. It could not be brought to our notice that any material placed in evidence was overlooked by the authorities while upholding the bonafide need of the 2nd petitioner. The contention regarding location has no substance. It is the landlord’s choice to do the business of his choice in the building owned by him. Regarding the age, it cannot be held that he is of such an age that he cannot be reasonable expected to do business. The contentions have no merit.
6. With regard to the contention based on the first proviso to Section 11 (3) of the Act, both the authorities have found that another four roomed building, wherein, a barber shop, tailor shop, stationary shop and mobile shop were being conducted, was sold. There is no material to find that the rooms were lying vacant and were available at the time of filing of the rent control petition. The first proviso was rightly negatived by the courts.
7. Though the tenant claimed the benefit under the second proviso, but for his ipse dixit, he did not produce any material to show the income from the business and substantiate that he was dependant on the income therefrom for his livelihood.
8. Regarding the second limb of the second proviso, his evidence as RW1 reveals that he had not even made any enquiries in the locality with regard to the availability of other vacant rooms. At the same time, Ext.C1, Commissioner's report would prove the availability of other suitable buildings in the locality. Therefore, the tenant is not entitled for protection under the second proviso to Section 11 (3) of the Act.
9. Thus, we concur with the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority in having ordered eviction on the ground of Section 11 (3) of the Act. The finding does not warrant any interference.
10. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner-tenant pleaded that the tenant may be granted 8 months' time to vacate the premises.
11. After having heard the learned counsel
