Revision petition challenging eviction order dismissed where tenant projected same bona fide need repeatedly and let out vacated premises. High Court found lower courts' findings perversely ignored tenant's conduct evidencing ruse for eviction.
Impugned judgment of Appellate Authority set aside; Rent Control Petition dismissed.
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 MRS. JUSTICE ANNIE JOHN
FRIDAY ,THE 08TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 19TH MAGHA, 1940
RCRev..No. 17 of 2018
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN RCP 2/2014 of RENT CONTROL COURT, ALATHUR
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN RCA 21/2015 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY (ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT-IV), PALAKKAD DATED 07-10-2017
REVISION PETITIONER/S:
1ST PETITIONER/2ND APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT
1 SHYNI SUNIL, AGED 42 YEARS, W/O.SUNIL, CHIRIYANKANDATH HOUSE, CHEENITHARA, KANNARA, PEECDHI P.O., THRISSUR-680 653.
2ND PETITIONER/NON PARTY TO APPEAL/NON PARTY TO RCP
2 JACOB, AGED 72 YEARS, S/O.GEORGE, VATTASSERRIL HOUSE, THENIDUKKU, VADAKKANCHERRY P.O., ALATHUR, PALAKKAD - 678 683.
BY ADVS. SRI.M.S.NARAYANAN SRI.SURAJ.S
RESPONDENT/S:
1ST RESPONDENT/1ST RESPONDENT IN R.C.A./ PETITIONER IN R.C.P
1 SARAVANAN, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.ANAKAMUTHU CHETTIAR, RESIDING AT D.B.ROAD, VADAKKANCHERRY P.O., ALATHUR, PALAKKAD - 678 683.
RCRev.No. 17 of 2018 2
RESPONDENTS 2 & 3/NON PARTIES TO R.C.A.& R.C.P
2 SUMA JACOB AGED 33 YEARS D/O.GEORGE, VATTASSERRIL HOUSE, THENIDUKKU, VADAKKANCHERRY P.O., ALATHUR, PALAKKAD - 678 683.
3 SUMESH JACOB AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.GEORGE, VATTASSERRIL HOUSE, THENIDUKKU, VADAKKANCHERRY P.O., ALATHUR, PALAKKAD - 678 683.
BY ADVS. SRI.V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL)
THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
RCRev.No. 17 of 2018 3
ORDER
K. HARILAL. J,
The Revision Petitioners are the tenants who are confronting with an order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court in R.C.P.No.2/2014 and affirmed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority in R.C.A.No.21/2015. The aforesaid Rent Control Petition
was filed seeking an order of eviction under section 11(3) of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
RCRev.No. 17 of 2018 4
photocopying centre. He is not in possession of any other vacant rooms. But several other buildings are available in the locality for shifting the business of the respondents from the tenanted premises.
RCRev.No. 17 of 2018 5
from the tenanted premises and no other buildings are available in the locality to shift their business from the tenanted premises.
adduced evidence and after considering the evidence on record, the Rent Control Court found that the need projected is bonafide, the claim for eviction under section 11(3) of the Act is not barred by the First Proviso to section 11(3) of the Act and the respondent is not entitled to get protection under the Second Proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. In the appeal, the Appellate Authority also affirmed all the aforesaid pleadings and dismissed the appeal.
counsel for the revision petitioners is that the Courts below have miserably failed to evaluate the bonafides of the need in its correct perspective and the evidence
RCRev.No. 17 of 2018 6
on record would show that the need projected is not bonafide. Thus the findings on bonafide need are perverse, warranting interference of this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. In order to fortify the said argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner drew our attention to Ext.B3, the copy of the petition, compromise petition and the order passed in the earlier Rent Control petition No.24/2010 on the files of the very same Court and contends that in the said Rent Control Petition also, the petitioner has projected the very same need for his wife and he got vacant possession of the said shop room by a compromise order passed by the Court below. As per the compromise order, he got vacant possession of the shop room to start a computer and photostat centre. After three years, he filed the present Rent Control Petition, projecting the very same need, after letting out the shop room which he got earlier under Ext.B3, to a third party. According to the learned counsel,
RCRev.No. 17 of 2018 7
Ext.B3 would negate the bonafides of the need. It is also contended that even though he got vacant possession, he started a stationery shop instead of a computer centre for a short time and thereafter let out the shop room to a third party and that conduct of the petitioner would cut the root of the bonafide need, the learned counsel contends.
petitioner submits that in the earlier Rent Control Petition, he got vacant possession of the shop room by a compromise order and there was no adjudication of issues. Therefore, the present Rent Control petition is not barred by section 15 of the Act. Further, it is contended that after getting vacant possession of the scheduled room in earlier R.C.P.No.24/2010, the wife of the petitioner, Remya started a stationery shop and she was constrained to stop it and let out to a third party when she has become pregnant. Therefore the Court below can be justified in finding that the bonafide need
RCRev.No. 17 of 2018 8
is not hit by the earlier Rent Control Petition, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner/landlord.
RCRev.No. 17 of 2018 9
petitioner got vacant possession of another tenanted premises of his own, in the same building, under a compromise order passed in R.C.P.No.24/2010. Since the earlier order was a compromise order, there was no adjudication of issues. Therefore, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents, the present Rent Control Petition is not barred by Section 15 of the Act.
RCRev.No. 17 of 2018 10
Rent Control petitions. Ext.B3 shows that the petitioner has got vacant possession of the tenanted premises in the earlier R.C.P.No.24/2010. Further, the petitioner himself admits that after conducting a stationery shop for a short time by his wife, he let out the shop room to a third party.
RCRev.No. 17 of 2018 11
has been stated about the earlier Rent Control Petition
or the circumstances under which he stopped the business in the other shop room, which he got by Ext.B3. The petitioner himself admit that though he filed the earlier Rent control Petition R.C.P.No.24/2010, projecting the need for starting a computer centre and photostat centre, he has not started the said business and instead of it, his wife started a stationery shop, for the time being, and thereafter he let out the shop room to a third party.
RCRev.No. 17 of 2018 12
and thereafter he let out the shop room to another tenant. This conduct would prove that the need projected in the present petition is a ruse for eviction only. We further find that neither the Rent Control Court nor the Appellate Authority made any attempt to evaluate the conduct of the petitioner in view of Ext.B3. On a meticulous analysis of the evidence on record, we find that the concurrent findings of the Court below are perverse, warranting interference of this Court and we do so. The impugned judgment passed by the Appellate Authority is set aside ant the Rent Control Petition will stand dismissed.
The Revision Petition is allowed, accordingly.
Sd/-
K.HARILAL
JUDGE
Sd/-
ANNIE JOHN
JUDGE
ajt
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the lower courts' finding that the tenant's need for eviction was bona fide was perverse considering his prior conduct.
Whether the same projected need under an earlier petition prior gets vacant possession barred the present eviction petition.
Whether the revisional court can interfere with the lower courts' factual findings regarding the bona fides of the need.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Shyini Sunil
Jacob
Saravanan
Suma Jacob
Sumesh Jacob
K Harilal
Annie John
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
