A rent control revision petition filed by a tenant challenging eviction orders. The court found no perversity in the lower authorities' view that the landlords had a genuine need to settle in Kerala for their children's education, confirming the eviction.
Petitioner granted six months to vacate premises contingent upon payment of arrears and 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 T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA
TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2013/16TH ASWINA, 1935
RCRev..No. 357 of 2013 () --------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN RCA 9/2013 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM DATED 17.7.2013
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN RCP 72/2011 of RENT CONTROL COURT, ERNAKULAM DATED 22.11.2012
REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT IN R.C.A./RESPONDENT IN RCP:
P.K.KOSHY AGED 59 YEARS S/O. KOCHANDY, OOTTUMANAKKAL HOUSE, XVIII/138 KAIPPADAMUGAL, VADACODE.P.O., KANGARAPPADY ERNAKULAM. PIN-682021.
BY ADVS.SRI.SANTHOSH G. PRABHU SRI.S.KANNAN
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS IN R.C.A./PETITIONERS IN RCP:
R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.GOPAKUMAR G. (ALUVA) ,CAVEATOR
THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-10-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & B. KEMAL PASHA, JJ.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
R.C.R. No. 357 of 2013
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2013
O R D E R
Ramachandran Nair, J.
The tenant is in revision, aggrieved by the concurrent orders passed by the authorities below.
rendered by the authorities below on the plea of bonafide need is not correct. According to him, the evidence will show that the respondents' child was admitted in the school in the year 2012.
RCR 357/2013
-2-
schedule building and pursue the higher studies of their children. The petitioner resisted the same by raising various contentions. The Rent Control Court, on an analysis of the evidence both documentary and oral, found that the bonafide need pleaded is genuine. It is in evidence that the respondents wanted to settle permanently in Kerala and to reside in the petition schedule building. They aspired to facilitate the higher education of their children in Kerala. It is in that context the court found that the bonafide need pleaded is genuine and the plea raised by the tenant cannot be supported. In paragraphs 9 and 10 the Rent Control Court has discussed the evidence in detail. The second respondent herein was examined as P.W.1. It was found that no ulterior motive is proved. The further contention that the landlords are having other residential buildings in Erumeli as well as in Ernakulam, also stood disproved.
RCR 357/2013
-3-
that as the second respondent herein came back from Muscat to India with their children and the children have been admitted in the schools in Kerala, it is evident that they have no intention to go back to Muscat. It was found that it is only natural that they intend to settle in Kerala rather than continuing in any foreign country. It was also found that the case of the tenant that the respondents have other residential houses in Erumeli as well as in Ernakulam also stood disproved.
We grant six months' time from today to the petitioner to vacate the petition schedule room on the following conditions:
i) The entire arrears of rent as on today will be paid/deposited within one month. If such deposit is made, the same will be disbursed to the respondents;
RCR 357/2013
-4-
ii) An affidavit will be filed by the petitioner before the Rent Control
Court within one month from today, undertaking to vacate the premises within the time stipulated by this Court.
iii) The petitioner will continue to pay at the same monthly rate for the use and occupation of the building till vacant peaceful possession is handed over to the respondents;
iv) If the above conditions are not satisfied, the petitioner will not get
the benefit of this order.
(T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE)
(B. KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE)
kav/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the concurrent findings regarding the genuine need of landlords for residential occupation warrant interference in revision.
Whether the landlords' claim for bona fide need for residential accommodation is substantiated as genuine.
P.K. Koshi
Sam Mathew
Binu Sam
T.R. Ramachandrannair
B. Kemal Pasha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
