Held that the High Court could not interfere with reasonable findings by statutory authorities regarding bona fide need for eviction under Section 11. Granted one year time to petitioner for surrender subject to affidavit undertaking to pay arrears and charges.
Rev. dismissed; Time granted till 31/1/2012 for surrender subject to affidavit undertaking.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE &
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 31ST MAY 2011 / 10TH JYAISHTA 1933
RCRev..No. 148 of 2011()
-----------------------RCA.68/2007 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY ,ERNAKULAM RCP.21/2006 of RENT CONTROL COURT, ERNAKULAM.
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENTS
P.K.GOPAN,AGED 56 YEARS, S/O. P.K.KRISHNAN, SANKAR AGENCIES, DOOR.NO.GF9,AMEEN CHAMBERS, BUILDING NO.39/4172, KARIMPATTA CROSS ROAD, ERNAKULAM.
BY ADV. SRI.ZAKEER HUSSAIN
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:
ADV. SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH FOR CAVEATOR
THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.
R.C.R.No. 148 OF 2011
Dated this the 31st day of May, 2011
O R D E R
Pius C.Kuriakose, J.
The tenant challenges in this revision an order of eviction concurrently passed by the statutory authorities on the ground under sub section (3) of Section 11 of the Act. The need projected by the landlords was that the petition schedule building is needed bona fide, so that the landlords can conduct business in opticals in the petition schedule building bearing door number 9 and in adjacent room bearing door number 10 and in the hind room having door number 4 which were at the time of commencement of the rent control petition in the possession of the other tenants.
RCR.No.148/2011 2
appreciating the evidence, would enter a finding that the need projected is bona fide and that the rent control petition is not liable to fail by virtue of either the first proviso or second proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11. Accordingly, the order of eviction was passed.
RCR.No.148/2011
3
appeal a room in the ground floor, which was being occupied by M/s.Ideal Electronics fell vacant and that room has now been let out by the landlords to M/s.Fab Electronics. The landlords is yet to occupy that room. According to Smt.Sanjeetha, if the need projected was bona fide one, the landlords would not have let out that room to M/s. Fab Electronics. She would assail the findings of the statutory authorities in the context of the first and second provisos to sub section (3) of Section 11.
RCR.No.148/2011 4
specific pleading of the landlords was that the need is to be accomplished by utilising the adjacent room and the hind room, the landlords cannot be blamed at all even if the room previously occupied by Ideal Electronics actually fell vacant and the same is let out to Fab Electronics. The landlords have special reason for insisting of getting the petition schedule building and the other two rooms presently got vacated as they are adjacent rooms.
RCR.No.148/2011 5
the evidence. Though Smt.Sanjeetha addressed several arguments, the only argument which had initial appeal to us was the argument that the landlords did not occupy the building previously occupied by M/s.Ideal electronics. This argument has been convincingly met by the learned counsel for the respondent with reference to the pleadings. The specific case pleaded by the landlords was that need of the landlords is to occupy the petition schedule room and the room having door number 10 and also hind room. It is not disputed that room having door number 10 and hind room have been got vacated by initiating proceedings against the tenants who are in occupation. Under the above circumstances the landlords cannot be blamed for not occupying the room which was previously occupied by the Ideal electronics. In short, there is no illegality, irregularity or impropriety about the findings concurrently entered to the effect that the need is bona fide. The same is the position as regards the tenant's eligibility for the protection of the second proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11 and the liability of the RCP to be rejected by virtue of the first proviso. The finding entered in favour of the landlords in the context of
RCR.No.148/2011 6
the first and second provisos are quite reasonable.
The revision necessarily will have to fail and will stand dismissed.
The revision petitioner shall file an affidavit before the Execution Court or the Rent Control Court as the case may be within three weeks from today undertaking as follows;
a). that he will give peaceful surrender of the petition schedule building to the respondents/landlords on or before 31/1/2012.
b). that he will discharge arrears of rent if any within one
RCR.No.148/2011
7
month and that he will pay occupational charges at the exiting rent rate promptly and regularly till the date of actual surrender.
We make it clear that the revision petitioner will get benefit of time allowed as above only if he files the affidavit on time and honurs the undertakings therein.
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE
N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE
dpk
RCR.No.148/2011
8
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------
RCR.No.148/2011
9
RC.R.No. 148 OF 2011
Dated this the 11th day of April, 2011
O R D E R
Pius C.Kuriakose, J.
Under challenge in this revision filed under Section 20 is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court under sub section (3) of Section 11. One point, which was highlighted before us by Smt.K.A.Sanjeetha learned counsel for the revision petitioner, was that during the pendency of the appeal, another room having door number 10 belongs to the respondents fell vacant and that the Appellate Authority dismissed the application for issuance of commission which the petitioner filed to prove such vacancy.
RCR.No.148/2011
10
projected need. Smt.Sanjeetha would now submit that yet another room has fallen vacant and there is no pleadings in the Rent Control Petition that more than two rooms are necessary. Sri.Jagan Abraham would now submit that the other room is a small corner room which is an extent of just 60 sq. feet.
Post tomorrow.
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE
N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE
dpk
3 issues framed by the court
Whether there is warrant for invoking jurisdiction under Section 20 to interfere with findings regarding bona fide need for eviction.
Whether landlords can claim bona fide need despite letting out a previously vacant room to a third party.
Whether to grant reasonable time to the eviction petitioner for surrender of premises despite landlord's stance.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
P.K.Gopan
Sulaiman Aboobacker Sait
Rasheeda Sulaiman
Pius C.Kuriakose
N.K.Balakrishnan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
