Dismissed

M/S.Anil Products v. Ratanlal Jain

Kerala HC28 Nov 2013RCRev./374/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dismissing the landlord's rent control revision appealing against an eviction order, the Court upheld the lower authorities' finding of bona fide necessity. It granted the tenant time until 31.7.2014 to vacate upon fulfilling arrears and delivery conditions.

What did the court decide?

Tenant granted time until 31.7.2014 to vacate upon remitting arrears and filing an affidavit within three weeks.

M/S.Anil Products Vs Ratanlal Jain — 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

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA

¶5

THURSDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013/7TH AGRAHAYANA, 1935

¶6

RCRev..No. 374 of 2013

¶7

RCA NO.43/2011 OF VI ADDL.DISTRICT COURT AND RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM DATED 12-09-2013

¶8

RCP NO. 22/2010 OF ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER, KOCHI

¶9

DATED 11-03-2011

¶10

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:-:

¶11

M/S.ANIL PRODUCTS, JEW TOWN, KOCHI - 682 002, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, MR.ANIL KUMAR K.K.

¶12

BY ADVS.SRI.S.B.PREMACHANDRA PRABHU SRI.K.B.RAJESH

¶13

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:-:

¶14

MR.RATANLAL JAIN, PROPRIETOR, M/S.BAFNA ENTERPRISES, D.S.ROAD, KOCHI - 682 002.

¶15

BY ADVS. SRI.ASIF K.MOHAMED ALI

¶16

SRI.NAVEEN THOMAS

¶17

THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28-11-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

Kss

¶19

T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & B. KEMAL PASHA, JJ.

¶20

-------------------------------------------------------- R.C.R. No.374 of 2013

¶21

-------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28^th day of November, 2013

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

Ramachandran Nair, J.

¶24

The main argument raised by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that the authorities below have misread the entire evidence and were not correct in dismissing the petition for eviction filed under Section 11(3) of the Buildings (Lease and Rent Control Act(hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The landlord is an exporter of spices and the need projected is to have the use of the building for storing various items.

¶25

Sri.S.B.Premachandra Prabhu, learned counsel

¶26

appearing for the revision petitioner contended that the landlord

¶27

RCR 374 of 2013

¶28

-:2:-

¶29

is having other buildings in his possession for his use, even though technically one of the buildings is not situated within the locality where the business is being run by the landlord. It is also contended that the room in question is only having 10 feet width and 110 feet in length and it is not suitable for the landlord's business purpose.

¶30

Learned counsel for the respondent Sri.Asif K. Mohammed Ali opposed the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is pointed out that the alternate building in the possession of the landlord is at Kannamaly in Chellanam which is 16 k.m. away, whereas the petition schedule room is at a walkable distance from the business place of the landlord, and it can be easily made use of for the purpose of conducting the business of the landlord. According to the landlord, building at Chellanam is being used for the purpose of processing and packing and for that purpose machineries have been installed there and hence it cannot be used as a godown.

¶31

RCR 374 of 2013

¶32

-:3:-

¶33

We have gone through the various items of evidence available in this case. The Rent Control Court on an evaluation of the entire evidence found that the plea raised by the landlord is justified by the evidence adduced in this case. The landlord is conducting business in export of spices, and the building is required for storing items as more space is required. He is having two buildings for the purpose, and has taken another one for rent also. He is also using the godown of Central Ware Housing Corporation. Requirement of space is more. The tenant is a commission agent and is also conducting business in spices. The authorities below after highlighting the various aspects, came to a conclusion that the requirement of the landlord is bona fide and allowed eviction.

¶34

The Appellate Authority after considering the oral and documentary evidence has pointed out that even though PW1 was subjected to severe cross examination by the learned counsel for the respondent, nothing could be brought out to discredit his statement on material aspects. On the evidence, it

¶35

RCR 374 of 2013

¶36

-:4:-

¶37

clearly stands proved that the need urged by the landlord is

¶38

bona fide . According to us, both the authorities below have appreciated the evidence in the correct perspective and have arrived at a correct decision with regard to the bona fides of the landlord. As far as the proviso to Section 11(3) is concerned, the findings are against the tenant. Sitting in the revisional jurisdiction we will not be justified in interfering with the concurrent orders passed by the authorities below on the findings of facts by substituting them. We are of the considered view that the conclusions arrived at by the authorities below cannot be said to be perverse. Accordingly, we dismiss this Rent Control Revision.

¶39

Learned counsel for the petitioner has sought for one year's time to vacate the premises. The same is opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent. However, we grant time upto 31.7.2014 for eviction of the premises.

¶40

In the result,

¶41

(a) This revision is dismissed.

¶42

RCR 374 of 2013

¶43

-:5:-

¶44

(b) The tenant is granted time upto 31.7.2014 from today

¶45

to vacate the premises and deliver possession to the landlord on the following conditions:

¶46

(i) The tenant remits the entire arrears as on today before the executing court within three weeks from today and files an affidavit before the executing court within three weeks from today, unconditionally undertaking to surrender vacant possession of the premises to the landlord within four months from today.

¶47

(ii) The tenant 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.

¶48

(c) Execution proceedings, if any, pending before the executing court shall be kept in abeyance for a period of four months if the aforesaid conditions are satisfied.

¶49

(d) If there is default in performing any of the conditions imposed in clause (b) above, the benefit given to the tenant as

¶50

RCR 374 of 2013

¶51

-:6:-

¶52

per this order will stand recalled automatically and the

¶53

executing court shall effect delivery forthwith.

¶54

Sd/- T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE

¶55

Sd/- B. KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE

¶56

ul/-

¶57

[True copy]

¶58

P.S. to Judge

M/S.Anil Products v. Ratanlal Jain

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Anil Products v. Ratanlal Jain

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

The Secretary, Cochin Devaswom Board Vs the Deputy Director, Local Fund Audit

Travancore Devaswom Board Vs the Deputy Director, Lfa, Tdb

Aliyamma Vs Pilakkat Raghavan

Joseph Kavalam Vs Santhosh Kuruvila

K.S.Gopinathan Nair Vs the Travancore Devaswom Board

The Travancore Devaswom Board Vs Tehe Deputy Director, Local Fund Audit