Allowed

Reghunath, S/O.Balakrishna Pillai v. K.Radhamony

Kerala HC5 Apr 2013RCRev./164/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court upheld the eviction of a tenant in favor of the landlord, affirming the bona fide need of the landlord's son for accommodation and the tenant's non-qualification for protection under the second proviso of Section 11(3). The tenant was granted time to vacate subject to paying arrears.

What did the court decide?

Eviction confirmed. Tenant granted time until 30.9.2013 to vacate, subject to payment of entire rent arrears within one month and filing an affidavit of peaceful surrender.

Reghunath, S/O.Balakrishna Pillai Vs K.Radhamony — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI

¶5

FRIDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL 2013/15TH CHAITHRA 1935

¶6

R.C.Rev.No.164 of 2012 (E)

¶7

(AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN RCA.NO.35/2010 OF ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY,TRIVANDRUM DATED 31-01-2012 AGAINST THE ORDER IN RCP.NO.82/2009 OF RENT CONTROL COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, DATED 19-09-2010)

¶8

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENT/COUNTER PETITIONER:

¶9

REGHUNATH, AGED 53 YEARS,

¶10

S/O.BALAKRISHNA PILLAI, RESIDING AT RAGI, MARUKIL, OORUTTAMBALAM POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶11

BY ADV.SRI.DENIZEN KOMATH.

¶12

RESPONDENT(S)/APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶13

K.RADHAMONY, AGED 77 YEARS, W/O.LATE PROF.SREEKANTAN, RESIDING AT PILLA VEEDU, OPPOSITE NEMOM POLICE STATION, NEMOM POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-20.

¶14

BY ADV.SRI.R.T.PRADEEP (CAVEATOR).

¶15

THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05-04-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JJ.

¶17

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.C.R. No.164 of 2012

¶18

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 5^th day of April, 2013

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Ramachandran Nair, J.

¶21

The tenant is in revision here.

¶22

The landlady approached the Rent Control Court seeking eviction under Sections 11(3), 11(4)(i), 11(4)(iii) and 11(4)(v) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, for short, the Act. The Court dismissed the eviction petition and in appeal, eviction has been ordered by the learned Appellate Authority under Section 11(3) of the Act.

¶23

We have gone through the orders passed by both the authorities and the heard arguments made by the learned counsel on both sides.

¶24

The plea raised by the landlady is that the petitioner's son Vinu Krishnan, who is an MBA holder, is now working at Bangalore, doing the business of Holiday Homes and Tourism. He has decided to start a branch in the petition schedule building and thus, the son is depending on the landlady for getting accommodation. It is also stated that the landlady has no other vacant building in her possession.

¶25

Both sides adduced evidence in the matter and P.Ws.1 and 2 have been examined on the side of the landlady and Exts.A1 to A5 were marked.

¶26

RCR.164/12

¶27

¶28

C.W.1 was examined for the tenant and Exts.B1 to B10 were marked. Ext.C1 is the Commissioner's report.

¶29

The discussion of the learned Appellate Authority regarding the bona fide need is clear from paragraph (10) onwards. It was also stated that what has to be looked into is the bona fide of the need and the same cannot be permitted to be vitiated on account of the pleadings from other proceedings. The above findings have been rendered in the light of the references in the written statement filed by the landlady in O.S.No.2100 of 2009, by the learned counsel for the tenant.

¶30

As far as the bona fide need pleaded is concerned, we are of the view that the learned Appellate Authority also has correctly appreciated the facts. The case pleaded is that the son is depending on the landlady for accommodation and the requirement is of the son of the landlady also. His son is a qualified MBA holder. He wants to have his own business in the premises by starting as a branch. It is also not the case of the tenant that the son has no financial capacity also. In the absence of any evidence to show that the son is having any other premises for occupation, it cannot be said that the finding regarding the bona fide need is perverse, warranting interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Therefore, we confirm the same.

¶31

¶32

RCR.164/12

¶33

With regard to the 2^nd proviso under Section 11(3) also the findings are in favour of the landlady. Both the limbs of 2^nd proviso have been found against. It was found by the learned Appellate Authority that the tenant is not depending on the income from the business namely, 'Sabari Communications'. It is also found that the business of Margin Free Market, which is claimed to have been conducted by the tenant in the shop room, is not being conducted. Accordingly, it was found that the tenant had failed to prove and he is earning for his livelihood from the business conducted in the petition schedule room. We are not convinced that the above finding is wrong and erroneous, for any

¶34

reason. Therefore, we confirm the same.

¶35

Since the limbs of the 2^nd proviso are to be proved when the finding is against the tenant, it can be safely concluded that the tenant is not entitled for the benefits of protection of the 2^nd proviso. Accordingly we confirm the finding and dismiss the revision petition.

¶36

However, the learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for sufficient time to vacate the premises. The learned counsel for the landlady also submitted that admittedly, the Margin Free Market is not being conducted and, therefore, if at all this Court is inclined, only a minimum time be granted. Having regard to the various aspects, we grant time till 30.9.2013 for the petitioner to vacate the premises subject to the following conditions:

¶37

¶38

RCR.164/12

¶39

(a) The entire arrears of rent shall be paid by the revision petitioner to the respondent/landlady within one month from today and the receipt thereof shall be produced before the Rent Control Court or the Execution court as the case may be, without fail. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the landlady that arrears are due from 1.1.2010 onwards.;

¶40

(b) The revision petitioner shall file an affidavit before 12.4.2013 in the Execution Court or the Rent Control Court as the case may be, undertaking to surrender vacant possession of the petition schedule premises peacefully to the landlady on or before 30.9.2013 and he will continue to pay use and occupation charges at the same rate (Rs.1,700/-) within the time limited prescribed by this Court as above till the date of actual surrender of the premises to the landlady.

¶41

We make it clear that the tenant will get the benefit of time granted as above, only if he files the affidavit on time and honours the undertakings contained therein.

¶42

Sd/- T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE

¶43

Sd/- A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE

¶44

krj

¶45

//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE

Reghunath, S/O.Balakrishna Pillai v. K.Radhamony

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reghunath, S/O.Balakrishna Pillai v. K.Radhamony

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ummachu & Others Vs Thottiyil Muhammed Kutty

K.Balaraman Vs Cheriya Patha @ Fathima

Suresh Vs Unnikrishnan

Rajesh @ Shibu Vs State of Kerala

Kolaprath Padikkal Rukhiya Vs Marankandi Gangadhara Nair

Balaraman Vs Puvatt Sajeev Kumar