Dismissed

Stanley P.T v. K.Padmavathy

Kerala HC8 Jul 2019RCRev./172/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed a revision petition against orders granting eviction of a tenant under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. Upholding the lower courts, the Court held the eviction justified due to bonafide need and statutory non-occupancy. However, granting relief, the tenant was allowed six months to vacate upon depositing rent and filing an affidavit.

What did the court decide?

Tenet allowed to occupy the room for six months upon filing an affidavit to vacate and clearing all arrears of rent.

Stanley P.T Vs K.Padmavathy — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.

¶6

MONDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 17TH ASHADHA, 1941

¶7

RCRev..No.172 of 2018

¶8

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 31-01-2018 IN RCA NO.264/2016 of II ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY(II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT), KOZHIKODE

¶9

AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28-07-2015 IN RCP NO.138/2015 of RENT CONTROL COURT (PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF'S COURT), KOZHIKODE

¶10

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/TENANT:

¶11

STANLEY T.P., 67 YEARS, S/O. WILLIAM, KUTTIYIL HOUSE, KATCHERI AMSOM DESOM, WEST HILL, KOZHIKODE THALUK, CALICUT PIN 673 005.

¶12

BY ADVS. SRI.MANJERI S SUNDER RAJ SRI.A.SANOOJ

¶13

RESPONDENTS/RCA-RESPONDENT/LANDLADIES:

¶14

1 K.PADMAVATHY,68 YEARS, W/O.KANYADATH RAMDASAN, KANYADATH HOUSE,KATCHERI AMSOM DESOM, WEST HILL, KOZHIKODE THALUK,CALICUT PIN 673 005.

¶15

2 K. SHEEJA,47 YEARS, W/O.KANYADATH RAMADASAN, KANYADATH HOUSE,KATCHERI AMSOM DESOM, WEST HILL, KOZHIKODE THALUK,CALICUT PIN 673 005.

¶16

BY ADVS. SRI.P.A.HARISH SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN

¶17

THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08.07.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

R.C.Rev.No.172 of 2018

¶19

¶20

A.HARIPRASAD & SHIRCY V., JJ.

¶21

R.C.Rev. No.172 of 2018

¶22

Dated this the 8^th day of July, 2019

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Hariprasad, J.

¶25

Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and respondents.

¶26

Aggrieved by the concurrent findings by the Rent Control Court and the Rent Control Appellate Authority, granting eviction of the revision petitioner under Sections 11(3), 11(4)(ii) and 11(4)(v) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (in short, "the Act"), the tenant has come up in this revision.

¶27

Basic pleadings, necessary for disposal of the revision, are as follows: Petition schedule building belonged to the 1^st respondent. Later a portion of the building was set apart in a partition to the 2^nd respondent. It is a residential building wherein the revision petitioner is running a small scale industry in one of the rooms. 1^st respondent is residing with her daughter and she needs the tenanted room bonafide to convert it as a bed room. According to the respondents, the revision petitioner is not doing any business in the tenanted room.

¶28

Revision petitioner opposed the eviction petition by contending that bonafide need set up is only a ruse to evict him from the tenanted

¶29

R.C.Rev.No.172 of 2018 3

¶30

room. According to him, no other suitable building is available in the locality and he is making a livelihood out of the industry run in the tenanted room. The petition schedule room is not suitable for residence and therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶31

The Rent Control Court considered the testimony of PW1 and RW1 along with Exts.A1, B1 and B2. Exts.C1 and C2 are the commissioner's reports. After considering the evidence adduced by the parties, the Rent Control Court found that the bonafide need set up by the respondents is genuine and liable to be approved. Further, the Rent Control Court found that the revision petitioner ceased to occupy the tenanted room for more than six months without any reasonable cause and therefore, he is liable to be evicted under Section 11(4)(v) of the Act.

¶32

In appeal, the Rent Control Appellate Authority reconsidered the evidence and agreed with the finding of original authority and therefore the appeal was dismissed.

¶33

Learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that finding by the authorities below that the respondents established bonafide need is wrong. It is submitted that the building is not suitable for residential purpose. It is also contended that in another room of the same building 1^st respondent's daughter conducts a small stationary business. This part of the building can be used only for commercial purposes and not for a residential purpose.

¶34

Per contra, learned counsel for respondents contended that

¶35

the 1^st respondent is now living with her daughter and she has no separate

¶36

R.C.Rev.No.172 of 2018

¶37

¶38

place to reside. Therefore she requires the petition schedule room for her requirement after converting it into a bed room. There is no material on record to find out that the petition schedule building is not suitable for residential purpose. It is also the concurrent finding by the authorities below that the need set up by the respondents is bonafide. Having regard to the limitations of interference in a revision of this nature, we find that the fact finding authorities have entered a finding correctly on the basis of evidence let in the case.

¶39

Learned counsel for the revision petitioner strongly contended that the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act was not properly considered by the authorities below. It is well settled that the burden of proving non-availability of a suitable building in the locality and that the tenant ekes out a livelihood from the trade or business conducted in the tenanted premises rests solely upon him. The Authorities below have concurrently found on evidence that the revision petitioner failed to discharge the obligation cast by law on him for getting the protection of second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. We find no reason to interfere with this finding as well.

¶40

On the basis of the energy charges and other evidence, the authorities below entered a finding that the revision petitioner ceased to occupy the premises for the statutory period prescribed in Section 11(4)(v) of the Act. That finding is also justified on the basis of materials available in the records. Therefore we find no reason to interfere with the legally correct finding entered by the authorities below in the light of available evidence.

¶41

R.C.Rev.No.172 of 2018

¶42

¶43

Hence the revision is found to be without any merit. It is dismissed.

¶44

However, considering the fact that revision petitioner/ tenant

¶45

was conducting a small scale industry in the petition schedule room for a long time, we allow him to occupy the room for a period of six months on fulfilling the following conditions:

¶46

(i) Revision petitioner shall file an affidavit before the Rent Control Court, Kozhikode, within two weeks from today, unconditionally undertaking to vacate the petition schedule room within a period of six months from today without any demur .

¶47

(ii) He shall clear off all the admitted arrears of rent and shall continue to pay/deposit the agreed rent of `650/- per month until he actually vacates the premises.

¶48

In case any of the above conditions is breached by the revision petitioner, the execution court is free to execute the order of eviction without regard to the stipulation of time.

¶49

All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed.

¶50

A.HARIPRASAD, JUDGE.

¶51

SHIRCY V., JUDGE.

¶52

cks

Stanley P.T v. K.Padmavathy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Stanley P.T v. K.Padmavathy

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

P.E Thomas Vs Abraham Jose Rocky

Satheeshan.N.K. Vs C.K.Vanaja Mohanan

Sayooj Paul, Vs Smt.Asha

V.N. Sathikumari Vs Suresh Kumar

Kalathil Hamsa Koya Vs Rajasekhar Palakkavu Kalam

Dominic Durom Vs Sebastian