1. Landlord sought eviction of a tenant under the Rent Control Act for the bona fide occupation of his daughter to conduct a medical clinic. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 74877
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Sathish Ninan, P. Krishna Kumar, JJ
Venugopalan Nair – Appellant
Versus
VK Sreenivasan – Respondent
RCREV. NO. 246 OF 2026|RCP 7/2022|RCA 22/2024
Important Points
The court held that concurrent findings on bonafide requirement are sustainable if not perverse, and the absence of a specific word like 'dependent' in pleadings is not fatal if the intent is clear and the issue was considered by lower courts.
Subject
Civil - Rent Control
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Rent Control - Bonafide Requirement - Eviction for use by landlord's daughter to establish a medical clinic - Where concurrent findings of lower courts establish the bonafide nature of the requirement based on evidence, such findings will not be interfered with unless they are perverse or ignore material evidence. (Para 3)
(B) Pleading - Dependency of family member - Absence of the specific word 'dependent' in the petition - If the pleadings contain sufficient indications of requirement and the issue was argued and considered by lower courts without causing prejudice to the tenant, the absence of a specific formal plea is not fatal to the case. (Para 5)
(C) Vacancy - First Proviso to Section 11(3) - Availability of alternative premises - Where a Commissioner's report and evidence establish that no vacant rooms were available at the time of filing the petition, the first proviso to Section 11(3) is not attracted. (Para 6)
Issues: Whether the concurrent orders of eviction passed under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 were sustainable given the pleadings on dependency and availability of other rooms.
(B) Pleading - Dependency of family member - Absence of the specific word 'dependent' in the petition - If the pleadings contain sufficient indications of requirement and the issue was argued and considered by lower courts without causing prejudice to the tenant, the absence of a specific formal plea is not fatal to the case. (Para 5)
(C) Vacancy - First Proviso to Section 11(3) - Availability of alternative premises - Where a Commissioner's report and evidence establish that no vacant rooms were available at the time of filing the petition, the first proviso to Section 11(3) is not attracted. (Para 6)
Issues: Whether the concurrent orders of eviction passed under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 were sustainable given the pleadings on dependency and availability of other rooms.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: P.C. Haridas, V. Devan, Shyam Kumar M.
For the Respondents: M.P. Madhavankutty
For the Appellants/Petitioners: P.C. Haridas, V. Devan, Shyam Kumar M.
For the Respondents: M.P. Madhavankutty
Table of Contents
2. Tenant contested that the petition lacked a specific plea of dependency and that the landlord possessed vacant rooms, triggering the first proviso to Section 11(3). (Para 4 , 6 )
3. The court found the bona fide claim was substantiated by evidence despite the absence of the word dependent, and the premises were not vacant at the time of filing. (Para 3 , 5 , 6 )
4. Failure to use the specific term dependency in a rent control petition is not fatal if pleadings and evidence sufficiently demonstrate the necessity and dependency to the authorities. (Para 5 )
5. The revision petition is dismissed with a conditional extension of three months granted for the tenant to vacate the premises upon filing an undertaking. (Para 6 )
6. Is the express use of the word dependent mandatory in a petition for eviction under the Rent Control Act?
No. The court held that while the specific word may be absent, a petition is sustainable if the pleadings and subsequent proceedings sufficiently demonstrate the existence of dependency and the bona fide nature of the requirement. (Para 5 )
7. Does the possession of vacant rooms by a landlord necessarily trigger the first proviso to Section 11(3) for denying eviction?
No. Evidence must confirm the vacancy existed at the time of filing the petition. Rooms becoming vacant subsequent to filing for alternative use do not necessarily bar a claim for bonafide need. (Para 6 )
SATHISH NINAN & P. KRISHNA KUMAR, JJ.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
R.C.R. No.246 of 2026
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 13th day of November, 2026
O R D E R
Sathish Ninan, J.
The concurrent orders of eviction passed under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, (for short “the Act”) is under challenge by the tenant.
2. Eviction was sought for the occupation of the landlord's daughter, to start a dialysis clinic in the petition schedule building. The landlord was examined as PW1. His daughter, for whom eviction is sought, was examined as PW4. She is a Doctor by profession. Though she is presently at United Kingdom, she has sworn to of her intention to come down to the native place and to establish the proposed dialysis clinic.
3. The Courts, on appreciation of the evidence of PWs.1 and 4 found the claim to be bonafide. It could not be established before us that the appreciation of evidence by the Authorities was perverse or that any material evidence which would have titled the conclusion, was ignored.
4. The argument of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that, there is no plea in the Rent Control Petition that the daughter is dependent on the landlord for the building.
The absence of such plea is fatal, is the contention.
5. In the Rent Control Petition, at paragraphs 8 and 10 it has been pleaded thus:-
“ഹർജജികᨪരനᩙ᪓ മകൾ അലലᨪ്ᩔതജി ലഡᨪകക്ᨴറᨪയ ശശൈലജ ശശൈᩦനᨪഥജിനക സ്ᩭ്ᩌമᨪയജി കജിനജികക തതു്ᨴങതു്ᩐതജിലലയക ക ഹർജജി്ᩔടജികക്ᨴമതുറജികൾ അത്ᩓ്ᩌᩌᩏ ഉ്ᩈമവജിശൈ്ᩭᨪസപപൂർവᩌᩏ ആവശൈ്ᩓമᨪയജി തᩦർ്ᩐജിടᨾ്ᩦതᨪണക. കജിനജികക തതു്ᨴങതു്ᩐതജിലലയക ക സസൗകര്ᩓശപദമᨪയ മറക ഒഴജി്ᨼ ക്ᨴമതുറജികൾ ഹർജജികᨪരനക ശകവശൈമതു്ᩦതല. കപൂ്ᨴᨪനത എതതൃഹർജജികᨪരനᩙ᪓ ശകവശൈമജിരജികതു്ᩐ ഹർ ജജി്ᩔടജിക ക്ᨴമതുറജികളᨪണക കജിനജികക തതു്ᨴങതു്ᩐതജിനക ഏറവതുᩌᩏ അഭജികᨪമ്ᩓമᨪയജിടᨾ്ᩦതക. …....... ഹർജജി്ᩔടജിക ക്ᨴമതുറജികൾ ഹർജജികᨪരനᩙ᪓ മകൾ അലലᨪ്ᩔതജി ലഡᨪകക്ᨴറᨪയ ശശൈലജ ശശൈᩦനᨪഥജിനക സ്ᩭ്ᩌമᨪയജി കജിനജികക തതു്ᨴങതു്ᩐതജിലലയക ക ഹർജജി്ᩔടജിക ക്ᨴമതുറജികൾ അത്ᩓ്ᩌᩌᩏ ഉ്ᩈമവജിശൈ്ᩭᨪസപപൂർവᩌᩏ ആവശൈ്ᩓമᨪയജിതᩦർ്ᩐജിടᨾ്ᩦതᨪണക.”
While the word “dependent” has not been used, there are sufficient indications regarding the same. We find that, the question of “dependency” was urged before the Rent Control Court as well as the Appellate Authority and was considered elaborately by the authorities. The Authorities noted that there is no case for the respondent that PW4 has a building of her own. The contention has been urged and considered. It could not be demonstrated before us that any prejudice has resulted to the tenant consequent to the absence of a specific plea in the Rent Control Petition with regard to the dependency. We find that the argument has no merit.
6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner argued that there were vacant rooms in the possession of the landlord and hence the first proviso to Section 11(3) is attracted. It is to be noted that, it is the definite case of the landlord that when the Rent Control petition was filed there was no vacant room available with him. A commission was taken out by him. The Commissioner's reports reveal that there were no vacant rooms available with the landlord. The landlord as PW1 has deposed that after the filing of the petition two rooms fell vacant which were subsequently let out. The Authorities rightly found that the first proviso to Section 11(3) is not attracted.
There is no reason to entertain the revision petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, we grant three months time for the revision petitioner-tenant to vacate the petition schedule building. This shall be subject to the condition that the tenant files an affidavit within a period of two weeks from today, undertaking to unconditionally surrender the premises within a period of three months, and pays the monthly rent without default. In case of failure to comply with any of the conditions as above, the revision petitioner will lose the benefit granted under this judgment and shall be liable to be evicted forthwith.
