1. Landlords sought eviction of a tenant under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, claiming the premises for the bonafide need of a family member's business. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 68306
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Sathish Ninan, P. Krishna Kumar, JJ
M. Nakulan – Appellant
Versus
Raghavan – Respondent
R.C.REV. NO. 234 OF 2025 | RCA 148/2023
Important Points
A change in the specific projected need for eviction does not automatically negate bonafides if explained, and dependency of a family member can be established through factual averments and evidence even if the term 'dependency' is not explicitly pleaded in the petition.
Subject
Civil Law - Landlord-Tenant Dispute
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 - Section 11(3) - Bonafide need for eviction - Change in the nature of the need - Whether a change in the specific person or purpose for which the premises are required negates the bonafides of the need - The mere fact that the need projected earlier was different is not determinative in finding that the present need lacks bonafides, provided the circumstances for the change are explained (Paras 7 and 8).
(B) Pleading of 'Dependency' - Whether the explicit use of the word 'dependent' is necessary in the petition to establish the right to seek eviction on behalf of a family member - Where factual averments in the petition and evidence (such as a son's age, qualifications, and the parents' agreement to provide funds) sufficiently establish dependency, the absence of the specific term 'dependent' in the pleadings does not result in prejudice to the tenant (Paras 10 and 11).
Facts of the case:
Petitioner (landlord) initially filed for eviction for an Ayurvedic business. Following the death of the original landlord, the heirs amended the petition to seek eviction for a daughter-in-law's textile business, then later amended it again to seek eviction for the second petitioner's son to start an air conditioning and refrigerator service centre. The Rent Control Court ordered eviction. However, the Appellate Authority reversed this, citing that the changing nature of the need suggested a pretext and that the petitioners failed to explicitly plead the 'dependency' of the son.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the son's age (30), his professional diploma, and his current employment for a meager salary established a genuine need for independent business. The court further noted that the averments in the petition and proof affidavit clearly indicated the son's dependency on the petitioners for funds and accommodation, rendering the Appellate Authority's insistence on the specific word "dependent" incorrect.
Issues: Whether the change in the projected need for eviction affects its bonafides and whether the explicit term 'dependency' must be pleaded in the petition to allow eviction for a dependent family member.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the genuineness of the need is the primary consideration, and a change in the specific requirement does not inherently imply a lack of bonafides. Furthermore, dependency can be inferred from factual pleadings and evidence, and the absence of a specific legal keyword like "dependent" does not invalidate a claim if the facts sufficiently support the dependency.
Result: Rent Control Petition allowed. Order of eviction restored.
(B) Pleading of 'Dependency' - Whether the explicit use of the word 'dependent' is necessary in the petition to establish the right to seek eviction on behalf of a family member - Where factual averments in the petition and evidence (such as a son's age, qualifications, and the parents' agreement to provide funds) sufficiently establish dependency, the absence of the specific term 'dependent' in the pleadings does not result in prejudice to the tenant (Paras 10 and 11).
Facts of the case:
Petitioner (landlord) initially filed for eviction for an Ayurvedic business. Following the death of the original landlord, the heirs amended the petition to seek eviction for a daughter-in-law's textile business, then later amended it again to seek eviction for the second petitioner's son to start an air conditioning and refrigerator service centre. The Rent Control Court ordered eviction. However, the Appellate Authority reversed this, citing that the changing nature of the need suggested a pretext and that the petitioners failed to explicitly plead the 'dependency' of the son.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the son's age (30), his professional diploma, and his current employment for a meager salary established a genuine need for independent business. The court further noted that the averments in the petition and proof affidavit clearly indicated the son's dependency on the petitioners for funds and accommodation, rendering the Appellate Authority's insistence on the specific word "dependent" incorrect.
Issues: Whether the change in the projected need for eviction affects its bonafides and whether the explicit term 'dependency' must be pleaded in the petition to allow eviction for a dependent family member.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the genuineness of the need is the primary consideration, and a change in the specific requirement does not inherently imply a lack of bonafides. Furthermore, dependency can be inferred from factual pleadings and evidence, and the absence of a specific legal keyword like "dependent" does not invalidate a claim if the facts sufficiently support the dependency.
Result: Rent Control Petition allowed. Order of eviction restored.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri. K. Lakshminarayanan, Smt. Sathyashree Priya Easwaran, Shri. K. Subramanian
For the Respondents: Sri. Zubair Pulik kool, Shri. Muhasin K.M.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri. K. Lakshminarayanan, Smt. Sathyashree Priya Easwaran, Shri. K. Subramanian
For the Respondents: Sri. Zubair Pulik kool, Shri. Muhasin K.M.
Table of Contents
2. Tenant disputed the bonafide need, questioning the validity of the amended purpose and alleging failure to plead and prove dependency of the family member on the landlords. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 )
3. The court found the bonafide need sufficiently established through evidence and held that lack of the word 'dependency' in pleadings does not prejudice the merits when facts are clear. (Para 7 , 8 , 10 )
4. A change in the stated need for eviction does not disprove bonafides if established by evidence, and failure to use specific terminology is immaterial when substantive dependency is proven. (Para 8 , 10 )
5. The High Court set aside the Appellate Authority's judgment and restored the Rent Control Court's order of eviction. (Para 12 )
6. Does a change in the asserted purpose for eviction automatically invalidate an allegation of bonafide need?
No. The court held that the change in the nature of the business or the individual for whom the premises are required does not render the need malafide if the landlord provides a reasonable explanation for the shift and sufficiently establishes the genuineness of the current requirement. (Para 7 , 8 )
7. Is it fatal to an eviction petition if the word 'dependency' is not explicitly used by the petitioner?
No. Where the pleadings contain sufficient averments regarding the family member's circumstances and employment status, and evidence is produced to support the claim, formal omission of the word 'dependency' does not cause prejudice or preclude a finding of bona fide need. (Para 10 )
SATHISH NINAN & P. KRISHNA KUMAR, JJ.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
R.C.R. No.234 of 2025 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 12th day of November, 2026
O R D E R
Sathish Ninan, J.
The order of eviction passed under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, (for short “the Act”) by the Rent Control Court, was reversed by the Appellate Authority on the appeal by the tenant. The landlord is in Revision.
2. The Rent Control Petition was filed in the year 2016 by one Nakulan who is the predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioners. Eviction was sought for his need of conducting business in Ayurvedic Medicines and Drugs. The Rent Control Court, as per order dated 30.11.2017, ordered eviction. Pending the appeal by the tenant as RCA 20/2018, the landlord-Nakulan passed away. The legal heirs of Nakulan got themselves impleaded in the proceedings and sought to amend the Rent Control Petition claiming eviction for the bonafide need of Nakulan's daughter-in- law, to start a textile business. The amendment was declined by the Appellate Authority and the Rent Control Petition was dismissed. Challenging the same, the landlords approached this Court in Rent Control Revision No.172/2020. This Court held that amendment can be permitted, and remanded the matter to the Rent Control Court.
3. After remand, the Rent Control petition was amended seeking eviction, however not for the daughter-in-law but for the son of the second petitioner to start an air conditioning and refrigerator service centre.
4. The Rent Control Court upheld the bonafide need. It further noted that the tenant conceded of not claiming the benefits under the first and second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. Accordingly eviction was ordered.
5. On appeal by the tenant, the Appellate Authority interfered with the finding of bonafide need stating that the need projected before this Court and the need incorporated by way of amendment were different. It also held that petitioners failed to plead and prove the “dependency” of the second petitioner's son. Accordingly, the Rent Control Petition was dismissed.
6. We have heard learned counsel on either side.
7. As per the amended Rent Control petition, the requirement is for the second petitioner's son to do business in air conditioning and refrigerator services. To hold against the bonafide need all that the appellate authority relied on was that, when this Court had in the earlier round of litigation allowed amendment of the Rent Control Petition, the need projected was for the purpose of Nakulan's(the original landlord- Petitioner) daughter-in-law to start textiles business. But the amendment effected was, seeking eviction for the second petitioner's son and not for Nakulan's daughter-in-law. This was taken note of by the Appellate Authority adversely and held that the different cases being set up is only a pretext for eviction.
8. What is required to be considered is, whether the need urged is bonafide or not. PW1 had deposed that Nakulan's daughter-in-law had shifted to Bangalore and that the second petitioner's son who is aged 30 years and who holds a diploma in air conditioning and refrigerator servicing, wants to start a refrigerator service centre in the room. It is the bonafides of the said need which is relevant. The mere fact that the need projected earlier was different, is not determinative to find that the present need and purpose pleaded lacks bonafides. The circumstances as to why there has been a change in the requirement has been explained by PW1. The second petitioner's son is aged 30 years. He holds a diploma in air conditioning and refrigerator. Presently he is employed elsewhere. He is unmarried. He intends to start an air conditioning and refrigerator service centre in the petition scheduled room. The son of the second petitioner is examined as PW1. The above sufficiently establishes the genuineness of the need. The Appellate Authority failed to appr
