Revision against eviction order confirms lower courts dismissed challenge as respondent failed to prove non-bona fide motive or strict provisos; granted 6-month grace period with conditions.
Time granted to vacate shop room within six months subject to filing affidavit and payment of rent arrears.
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 K.HARILAL & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
MONDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL 2017/13TH CHAITHRA, 1939
RCRev..No. 15 of 2017 (E)
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24-11-2016 IN RCA NO.2/2015 of II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM.
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24-10-2014 IN RCP NO.55/2012 of III ADITIONAL MUNSIFF'S COURT, RENT CONTROL), ERNAKULAM.
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:
TARANJEET NAGPAL @ KAPIL NAGPAL, S/O.TRILOK NAGPAL, AGED 49 YEARS, HAVING OFFICE ADDRESS AS NAGPAL BUILDERS, RAVI TOWER, N.H.BYEPASS, PALARIVATTAM, VENNALA P.O., ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682 021, RESIDING AT 9-F, LINK HEIGHTS, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682036.
BY ADV. SRI.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
--------------------------------
E.K.RAVEENDRAN, S/O. KANDAN KORAN, AGED 65 YEARS, RESIDING AT DWARAKA, 50/272-C, PRASHANTH NAGAR, EDAPPALLY, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682024.
BY ADV. SRI..PHILIP T.VARGHESE (CAVEATOR)
THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-04-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
K. HARILAL & RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN. V., JJ.
--------------------------------------------------------R.C.R. No.15 of 2017-E
---------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 3rd day of April, 2017
ORDER
Harilal, J.
The petitioner is the tenant, who confronted with an order of eviction passed under Sec.11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short 'the Act'). The parties are referred to as in the Rent Control Petition. According to the petitioner, he requires the petition schedule building for starting a business of 'exterior tiles' for his son, who is a dependent, for the petition schedule building. The respondent is not depending on the income derived from the business in the petition schedule property and so many alternative vacant rooms are available in the locality for shifting the business in the petition schedule shop room.
R.C.R. No.15 of 2017
-: 2 :-
construction of the plaint schedule building was not complete when he has taken the shop room and he had spent about `25 lakhs for construction and interior decoration and thereafter, rent was periodically enhanced at the rate of 15% in every three year. There is no bona fides in the need projected in the petition. The 2nd floor was rented out on a monthly basis to a Doctor and the ground floor is more convenient for conducting the proposed business. The petitioner's son is not in need of the petition schedule building. So also, he is depending the income derived from the business in the petition schedule shop room and alternative vacant buildings are not available in the locality.
R.C.R. No.15 of 2017
-: 3 :-
said findings. Thus, the legality and propriety of the concurrent findings are challenged in this revision.
and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
R.C.R. No.15 of 2017
-: 4 :-
evidence materials which would persuade the court to conclude that there is an oblique motive behind the proposed need. But the respondent has miserably failed to substantiate any kind of oblique motive behind the need put forward by the petitioner. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings as regards bona fide need.
R.C.R. No.15 of 2017
-: 5 :-
ownership of the second floor and there is no evidence to prove that the ground floor is lying vacant. Moreover, he himself admitted that the ground floor was rented out six years before the filing of the Rent Control Petition.
R.C.R. No.15 of 2017
-: 6 :-
request. But, this Court is of the view that a reasonable time can be given to the revision petitioner to vacate the petition schedule shop room, on terms. The revision petitioner shall vacate the petition schedule shop room within six months, provided that he could comply the conditions given below within the specified time.
(i) The revision petitioner shall file an affidavit before the Execution Court expressing an unconditional undertaking to vacate the petition schedule shop room within a period of six months from today and the said affidavit must be filed within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(ii) The revision petitioner shall pay entire arrears of rent to the respondent or deposit the same before the Execution Court within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order and he shall continue to
R.C.R. No.15 of 2017 -: 7 :-
pay rent without default.
(iii) In the event of failure, the time granted to vacate the petition schedule shop room would stand automatically vacated and the respondent will be at liberty to proceed with the execution.
This Rent Control Revision is disposed of
accordingly.
Sd/-
(K. HARILAL, JUDGE)
Sd/-
(RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., JUDGE)
Nan/
//true copy//
P.S. to Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the respondent discharged the burden of proving bona fides and non-availability of alternative rooms under Sec.11(3) of the Act.
Whether the concurrent findings of lower courts upholding eviction based on bona fide need require interference.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
TARANJEET NAGPAL @ KAPIL NAGPAL
E.K.RAVEENDRAN
K. HARILAL
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
