Kerala High Court revision bench dismissed landlord's revision alleging own occupation need. Court upheld Appellate Authority's finding that landlord possessed another shop room when need arose in January 2013, creating a "lost" situation on credibility of tenure.
Impugned order rejecting Section 11(3) claim is confirmed. No interference warranted.
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 P.SOMARAJAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST 2017/11TH SRAVANA, 1939
RCRev..No. 304 of 2015 (B)
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN RCA 18/2013 of D.C. & SESSIONS & MACT, KASARAGOD, DATED 07-09-2015
AGAINST THE ORDER IN RCP 14/2013 of PRL.MUNSIFF, KASARAGOD, DATED 31-10-2013
REVISION PETITIONER/ APPELLANT/LANDLORD : -
CHOORI ABDULRAHIMAN, S/O.C.A.ABDULLAKUNHI, AGED 46 YEARS, RESIDING AT RAHMANIYA HOUSE, R.D.NAGAR, KUDLU VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.KODOTH SREEDHARAN
RESPONDENT / RESPONDENT / TENANT :-
K.P.UDAYAKUMAR, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.N.NIRMAL KUMAR, RESIDING AT SMITHA HOUSE, PARAKATTA, R.D.NAGAR, KUDLU VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT - 671 121.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.M.NEELAKANDAN R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN R1 BY ADV. SRI.SABU GEORGE
THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02-08-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
DMR/-
K. HARILAL & P. SOMARAJAN, JJ.
R.C.R. No.304 of 2015
-----------------------------------------------Dated this the 02nd day of August, 2017
O R D E R
P. Somarajan, J.
Aggrieved by the verdict rendered by the Rent Control Appellate Authority under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short 'the Act'), the landlord came up with this revision.
R.C.R. No.304 of 2015
2
that the landlord was having another shop room in his possession as on the date of petition and no special reason to the satisfaction of the Rent Control Court is either brought out or let in evidence. The said finding rendered by the Appellate Court is mainly based on the allegation made by the tenant regarding the possession of a shop room bearing Door No.3/1277 A4 covered by Exhibit A16. But, going by Exhibit A16, it is clear that it was a certificate issued by the local municipality with respect to licence issued to the tenant in occupation of that shop room for the period commencing from 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, which stands for a period starting from second half of the year 2013. The Rent Control Petition was filed in the year 2013. The pleading raised in the petition and the deposition of PW1 landlord would show that his necessity and need had arisen in the month of January 2013. If that be so, there is much weight in the contention raised by the tenant that the said building was available with the landlord at least at the time when the alleged need arose, ie. in the month of January, 2013. We are at a lost to understand why it was given to a tenant, if the need raised is bona fide. Of course, PW3, who is claimed to be the tenant of the said
R.C.R. No.304 of 2015
3
shop room, was examined and he had set out a different version stating that he came into possession of the said building as early as in the year 2008, i.e. on 01.05.2008. But, it is seemed to be so strange that he had admitted that the stamp paper used for preparing the lease deed/rental arrangement was subsequently purchased on the 20th day of that month. This would prima facie show the nature and credibility of the oral evidence tendered by PW3. Further, he had admitted that his chief examination was prepared at the instance of the petitioner herein, while he was in the box. No scrap of paper is produced to show that he was in possession of the building or he was a tenant of that building right from the year 2008. But, Exhibit A16, would show that the licence was obtained for the year 2013-2014 and 2014-2015. No document or any scrap of paper is either produced or let in evidence to show his alleged occupation in the premises prior to the petition.
R.C.R. No.304 of 2015
4
other shop rooms to tenants. It is just two months before the date on which the alleged need arose. This would tell upon what is behind it and it will cut the very root of the need advanced in the petition. Hence, we do not find any reason for interference by this revisional court. The revision fails, deserves only dismissal and we do so, but without costs.
K. HARILAL (JUDGE)
P. SOMARAJAN (JUDGE)
DMR/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Rent Control Appellate Authority erred in rejecting the landlord's claim of need for own occupation under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965.
Whether the tenant's possession of another shop room invalidates the landlord's bona fide need to occupy the leased premises.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Choori Abdulrahiman
K.P. Udayakumar
K. Harilal
P. Somarajan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
