Dismissed

K.C. Ashokan v. Kandathil Sasidharan

Kerala HC12 Nov 2013RCRev./372/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This rent control revision dismissed, upholding eviction findings. The court held the landlord's job change did not negate bona fide need and rejected tenant claims regarding alternative accommodations. The tenant was granted seven months to vacate upon fulfilling specific conditions regarding arrears and possession.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed; tenant granted seven months time to vacate pending payment of arrears and surrender of possession.

K.C. Ashokan Vs Kandathil Sasidharan — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013/21ST KARTHIKA, 1935

¶7

RCRev..No. 372 of 2013 ()

¶8

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN RCA 123/2011 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THALASSERY DATED 17-08-2013

¶9

AGAINST THE ORDER IN RCP 25/2010 of RENT CONTROL COURT, THALASSERY DATED 22-12-2010

¶10

REVISION PETITIONER:

¶11

K.C. ASHOKAN S/O.GOVINDAN, SHAN BAKERY, CHOOLA CHAKKARAKKAL, P.O MOWANCHERY 670 613, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶12

BY ADVS.SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.A.ARUNKUMAR

¶13

RESPONDENT:

¶14

KANDATHIL SASIDHARAN AGED 45 YEARS S/O.KUNHIRAMAN, KANDATHIL HOUSE P.O MOWANCHERRY 670 613.

¶15

BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE MATHEWS(CAVEATOR) SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE(SR.)

¶16

THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-11-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &

¶18

B.KEMAL PASHA, JJ.

¶19

¶20

R.C.R. No.372 of 2013 D

¶21

Dated this the 12^th day of November, 2013

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

¶24

Ramachandran Nair, J.

¶25

The tenant of a building, who is aggrieved by the concurrent findings rendered by the Rent Control Court as well as the appellate authority, is before us in this Rent Control Revision.

¶26

The landlord sought eviction under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short, 'the Act') for conducting business. He was in Gulf countries but later he lost his job and returned to his native place. The tenant had raised various contentions disputing the bona fide need of the landlord and evidence was let in by both

¶27

RCR.372/2013

¶28

: 2 :

¶29

parties. The Rent Control Court found that the bona fide need of the landlord has been proved and accordingly directed the petitioner to vacate the petition schedule building. The Appellate Authority has considered the matter in detail. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the findings entered by the authorities are not convincing on the aspect of bona fide need. It is also submitted that there is evidence that the landlord is proposing to sell the building. It is argued that with regard to the availability of the other buildings in the locality, the evidence adduced by the tenant is sufficient to discharge his burden.

¶30

The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

¶31

respondent submitted that all the aspects have been considered properly and the orders do not require any interference.

¶32

It is clear from the evidence that the landlord has lost his job, which he had in Gulf countries, and he has returned to his native place. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, he is now working as a beedi roller and thus he is having employment and hence the need is bona fide. We cannot understand as to how the avocation chosen by the

¶33

RCR.372/2013

¶34

: 3 :

¶35

landlord for his livelihood during the period of pendency of the Rent Control Petition can go against the genuineness of the bona fide need. Therefore, we reject the said contention.

¶36

As regards the contention that negotiation to sell the

¶37

property has its own importance, the same is also covered against the tenant by the judgment in Balan Vs. Bijina [2004 (3) KLT 180], wherein it has been held that attempt to sell away the tenanted premises during the pendency of rent control proceedings is not fatal to a plea under Section 11(3) of the Act. Therefore, we reject this contention also.

¶38

With regard to the evidence adduced by the tenant to

¶39

show that no suitable and vacant buildings are available in that locality, the learned counsel placed reliance on RW3's evidence and contended that he had conducted due enquiries regarding the said aspects. It is well settled that the burden is on the tenant to establish the ingredients so as to bring the case under the 2^nd proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act i.e., he is depending the income from the business in the petition schedule room for his livelihood and that there are no suitable and vacant buildings

¶40

RCR.372/2013

¶41

: 4 :

¶42

available in that locality for his occupation. Therefore, the tenant must have conducted enquiries and whatever enquiries made by RW3 cannot help to advance the plea made by the tenant. Landlord in evidence had pointed out two vacant buildings near the tenanted premises. Apart from that, there is a finding that the tenant has failed to adduce evidence to the effect that he is solely depending upon the income from the business in the petition schedule room for his livelihood. The same being a finding of fact and that too on the aspect of lack of evidence, we will not be justified in interfering with the order impugned. Therefore, we reject this contention also. Consequently, we dismiss this Revision Petition, upholding the findings under Section 11(3) of the Act.

¶43

The learned counsel for the petitioner sought for a larger time to vacate the building. The same is opposed by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is conducting a bakery and he will have to find out a suitable place to locate the oven to conduct the bakery business.

¶44

RCR.372/2013

¶45

: 5 :

¶46

In the result,

¶47

(a) This revision petition is dismissed.

¶48

(b) The tenant is granted seven months' time from

¶49

today, namely, up to 30.06.2014, to vacate the premises and deliver possession to the landlord on the following conditions:-

¶50

(i) He remits the entire arrears as on today

¶51

before the executing court within one month from today and files an affidavit before the executing court within one month from today, unconditionally undertaking to surrender vacant possession of the premises to the landlord within seven months from today i.e., on or before 30.06.2014.

¶52

(ii) He pays charges towards use and occupation of the building at the current rent rate from today till he gives vacant possession of the premises to the landlord.

¶53

¶54

executing court shall be kept in abeyance for a period of seven months if the aforesaid conditions are satisfied.

¶55

RCR.372/2013

¶56

: 6 :

¶57

(d) If there is default in performing any of the conditions

¶58

imposed in clause (b) above, the benefit given to the tenant as

¶59