1. Landlord filed eviction petitions claiming bona fide requirement of shop rooms for business, along with allegations of rental default and tenant's acquisition of alternate accommodation. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 75024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Sathish Ninan, P. Krishna Kumar, JJ
Venus Opticals – Appellant
Versus
A M Raveendran – Respondent
RCREV. NO. 244 OF 2026 | RCREV. NO. 247 OF 2026
Important Points
Revisional courts should not reappreciate evidence on concurrent findings of bona fide need. Under Section 11(4)(iii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, acquiring a reasonably sufficient alternate building for the same business justifies eviction, regardless of the relative suitability of the new site.
Subject
Property Law - Rent Control
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Rent Control - Bona Fide Need - Concurrent findings of fact regarding the genuineness of the landlord's requirement for starting a business are binding on the revisional court unless perversity or gross irregularity is shown. (Para 8)
(B) Rent Control - Possession of Alternate Building - S. 11(4)(iii) - If a tenant acquires possession of another building reasonably sufficient for their requirements and is conducting the same business therein, the relative suitability of the new location compared to the old one is irrelevant for determining eviction. (Para 10)
(C) Revisional Jurisdiction - Scope of Review - The revisional power under Section 20 of the Act shall not be exercised to reappreciate evidence or substitute independent conclusions for findings arrived at by the Rent Control Court and Appellate Authority. (Para 8)
Issues: Whether the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding bona fide need and the acquisition of an alternate building by the tenant warrant interference in revision.
(B) Rent Control - Possession of Alternate Building - S. 11(4)(iii) - If a tenant acquires possession of another building reasonably sufficient for their requirements and is conducting the same business therein, the relative suitability of the new location compared to the old one is irrelevant for determining eviction. (Para 10)
(C) Revisional Jurisdiction - Scope of Review - The revisional power under Section 20 of the Act shall not be exercised to reappreciate evidence or substitute independent conclusions for findings arrived at by the Rent Control Court and Appellate Authority. (Para 8)
Issues: Whether the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding bona fide need and the acquisition of an alternate building by the tenant warrant interference in revision.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: S. Vishnu, Millu Dandapani
For the Appellants/Petitioners: S. Vishnu, Millu Dandapani
Table of Contents
2. Tenant contended that the landlord's requirement was not genuine, disputed rent arrears, and denied the acquisition of alternate premises reasonably sufficient for business requirements. (Para 4 , 5 )
3. The court found the landlord's requirement for a commercial shop space genuine and observed the tenant failed to prove the second proviso conditions under the Rent Control Act. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 )
4. Revisional power under the Rent Control Act prevents reappreciation of evidence absent perversity; acquisition of alternate premises triggers eviction regardless of commercial suitability matching previous business needs. (Para 8 , 10 )
5. The revision petitions were dismissed and eviction allowed, granting the tenant four months to surrender vacant possession subject to specific conditions. (Para 10 )
6. What is the scope of the High Court's revisional power under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act?
The revisional power is limited and does not extend to reappreciating evidence or substituting independent conclusions for findings of the lower courts unless there is clear material indicating perversity or gross irregularity in the findings. (Para 8 )
7. Does Section 11(4)(iii) of the Act allow a tenant to contest eviction by arguing the acquired building is not suitable for his specific business requirements?
No. Once a tenant acquires possession of a building reasonably sufficient for their requirements, the provision is attracted. The question of whether the new building is equally suitable for the specific commercial needs of the tenant is irrelevant for determining the applicability of Section 11(4)(iii). (Para 10 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN &
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2026 / 21ST KARTHIKA, 1948 RCREV. NO. 244 OF 2026 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.08.2026 IN RCA NO.139 OF
2024 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC)-III, THALASSERY ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER DATED 24.07.2024 IN RCP NO.145 OF 2019 OF MUNSIFF COURT, THALASSERY REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:
VENUS OPTICALS
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER BASHEER
PALLIYATH, AGED 65 YEARS, S/O ABDULLA,
RESIDING AT NOOR MAHAL,
P.O MUZHAPPILANGAD, KANNUR DIST, KERALA,
PIN - 670662
BY ADVS.
SRI.S.VISHNU (V-736)
SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
A M RAVEENDRAN
AGED 74 YEARS
BUSINESS, RESIDING AT 'PEARL MANSION', VENUS
JUNCTION, P.O THALASSERY, PIN - 670101
THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.11.2026, ALONG WITH RCRev.247/2026, THE COURT ON 12.11.2026 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN &
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2026 / 21ST KARTHIKA, 1948 RCREV. NO. 247 OF 2026 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.08.2026 IN RCA NO.138 OF
2024 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC)-III, THALASSERY ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER DATED 24.07.2024 IN RCP NO.144 OF 2019 OF MUNSIFF COURT, THALASSERY REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:
VENUS MEDICALS
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER BASHEER
PALLIYATH, AGED 65 YEARS, S/O ABDULLA, RESIDING AT
NOOR MAHAL, P.O MUZHAPPILANGAD, KANNUR DIST, KERALA,
PIN - 670662
BY ADVS.
SRI.S.VISHNU (V-736)
SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
A.M.RAVEENDRAN
AGED 74 YEARS
S/O.MANNAN, BUSINESS, RESIDING AT 'PEARL MANSION',
VENUS JUNCTION, P.O THALASSERY, PIN - 670101
THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.11.2026, ALONG WITH RCRev..244/2026, THE COURT ON 12.11.2026 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
SATHISH NINAN & P. KRISHNA KUMAR, JJ.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
R.C.R.No.244 and 247 OF 2026 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 12th day of November, 2026
ORDER
P.Krishna Kumar, J.
A tenant who suffered a concurrent order of eviction under Section 11(2), 11(3), 11(4)(iii) and 11(4)(ii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (‘the Act’, for short) is the revision petitioner.
2. The landlord filed two eviction petitions against the revision petitioner, who occupies two adjacent rooms under separate lease arrangements. These revision petitions are arising of those cases. Since all the questions in both the cases are the same, they are disposed of together.
3. The respondent/landlord contended that he bona fide requires both the petition schedule shop rooms for starting a modern coffee shop and snacks bar to earn his livelihood, as he has no other suitable building with comparable road frontage for the proposed business. He stated that, though certain rooms in his shopping complex are lying vacant, they are either situated on the first floor or at locations lacking commercial visibility and, therefore, are unsuitable for the intended business. It is further alleged that the tenant is in occupation of another commercial building, where also he is conducting a medical store. Alleging that the revision petitioner had also committed default in payment of rent, the eviction petitions were filed under Sections 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(4)(iii) of the Act.
4. The revision petitioner contended that no rent was in arrears and that the need projected by the landlord was not genuine. According to him, the need was set up only as a ruse for eviction. The revision petitioner further contended that several vacant rooms were available in the very same shopping complex for starting the proposed business. He also denied the allegation that he had acquired possession of an alternate building reasonably sufficient to accommodate his business.
5. We have heard Sri.
