This Rent Control Revision challenged an eviction order. The High Court upheld the lower courts' findings, finding the landlord's need bona fide. The tenant was granted time until 31 July 2014 to vacate the schedule room to the landlord.
Vacate the schedule room on or before 31/07/2014; pay arrears; continue paying rent until vacancy.
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 T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA
TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013/28TH KARTHIKA, 1935
RCRev..No. 238 of 2013 ()
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN RCA 84/2006 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THRISSUR DATED 19-03-2013
AGAINST THE ORDER IN RCP 101/2003 of RENT CONTROL COURT,THRISSUR DATED 21-07-2006
REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:-
CHAKKUNNY, AGED 62 YEARS S/O.THATTIKADA LONAPPAN, PERUMBILLISSERY DESOM CHOVOOR VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK.
BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:-
ANTO THOMAS, AGED 58 YEARS S/O.PULIKKAN THOMAS, PERUVANAM DESOM, CHOVOOR VILLAGE THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 001. R,R BY ADV. SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS R,R BY ADV. SMT.P.K.PRIYA R,R BY ADV. SRI.K.V.SREE VINAYAKAN R,R BY ADV. SRI.K.M.MUHAMMED HUSSAIN
THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19-11-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & B.KEMAL PASHA, JJ. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
R.C.R.No.238/2013
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dated this the 19th day of November, 2013
O R D E R
Kemal Pasha, J.
The tenant in R.C.P.No.101/2003 of the Rent Control Court, Thrissur
against whom an order of eviction under Section 11(8) of the Kerala
Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, [hereinafter referred to as the 'Act']
has unsuccessfully challenged the order before the Rent Control Appellate
Authority, Thrissur through R.C.A.No.84/2006. The Rent Control Appellate Authority concurred with the findings entered by the Rent Control Court
and dismissed the rent control appeal through the impugned order.
all the other portions of the building of which the scheduled shop room is a
part. The landlord is conducting a textile business in the remaining portions of the building and that he is badly in need of the petition schedule
room also for his textile business. According to the learned counsel for the
landlord, the landlord has made temporary constructions also in the
R.C.R.No.238/2013
-:2:-
premises in which the petition schedule building is situated and that portion
also is being used by him for the display of textile items for sale.
a tailoring shop in the petition schedule room wherein he has placed four
sewing machines and is continuing with the tailoring works. According to
the tenant, he is eking his livelihood from the income that is being derived
from his tailoring business in the petition schedule building.
learned counsel for the respondent in extenso. The learned counsel for the
petitioner has argued that as the petitioner is eking his livelihood from the
income from his tailoring works in the petition schedule building, he is not
liable to be evicted.
5. From the evidence of the petitioner, when examined as RW1,
it has come out that he is ready to surrender the petition schedule room to
the landlord on getting a suitable premises for his business. Under Section
R.C.R.No.238/2013
-:3:-
11(8) of the Act, it is not the lookout of the landlord to prove that other
buildings are available in the locality. As per the first proviso to Section 11
(10) of the Act, what has to be considered is the question of comparative
hardship, in the sense that whether the hardships to which the tenant will
be put in case of his eviction will outweigh the advantages to the landlord
on granting an order under Section 11(8) of the Act.
come out that the need urged by the landlord is bona fide. There is no serious dispute to the fact that the landlord is in need of additional space
for his business. It has come out in evidence that the landlord has made
even temporary constructions for displaying his textile items for sale. In such a case, there is nothing to show that the need urged by the landlord is
not bona fide. Over and above all these, it is the admitted case that the petition schedule room is abutting the road and, therefore, it is required for
display of textile items of the landlord.
R.C.R.No.238/2013
-:4:-
have appreciated the concurrent findings entered by the Rent Control
Court as well as by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, and we are
satisfied that the hardships which the tenant may be put on granting an
order of eviction will never outweigh the advantages to the landlord. Therefore, the first proviso to Section 11(10) of the Act also does not stand in the way of granting an order of eviction, under Section 11(8) of the Act,
to the landlord.
Control Court as well as by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, we do not
find any perversity, illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the findings, and therefore, there is absolutely nothing to interfere with the said findings.
What remains only is granting of a reasonable time to the tenant for putting
the landlord in possession of the petition schedule room.
R.C.R.No.238/2013
-:5:-
9. On hearing either side, we are satisfied that a time up to
31/07/2014 can be granted to the tenant to put the landlord in possession
of the building, subject of course to terms and conditions:-
In the result,
(b) The petitioner will file an affidavit unconditionally undertaking
to vacate the petition schedule premises on or before 31/07/2014 before
the Execution Court or the Rent Control Court as the case may be .
(c) The affidavit as directed above will be filed within a period of
one month.
(d) The arrears of rent, if any, will be paid to the landlord within a
period of one month.
(e) He will continue to pay the same monthly rent for use and
occupation till the vacant possession is handed over.
R.C.R.No.238/2013
-:6:-
It is made clear that if any of the above conditions are violated, the
petitioner will not be entitled to the benefit of this order.
Sd/-
(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge)
Sd/-
(B.Kemal Pasha, Judge)
ms
\True copy//
P.S to Judge
3 issues framed by the court
Whether eviction of a tenant for the landlord's bona fide business need is permissible under Section 11(8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act.
Whether the comparative hardship provision under the first proviso to Section 11(10) of the Act bars the eviction order.
Whether the lower courts' findings requiring vacating of the premises are perverse or illegal.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Chakkunny
Anto Thomas
T.R. Ramachandran Nair
B. Kemal Pasha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court