Dismissed

S.Surendran v. a.Abdul Majeed

Kerala HC25 Nov 2019RCRev./434/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam, dismissed a revision petition challenging an eviction order passed under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The landlord successfully established bona fide need for personal business use. The tenant failed to prove the landlord possessed alternative accommodation. The petition was dismissed, but the tenant was granted six months

What did the court decide?

Eviction upheld; tenant granted six months to vacate premises on conditions of filing undertaking and depositingarrears.

S.Surendran Vs a.Abdul Majeed — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

¶6

MONDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941

¶7

RCRev..No.434 OF 2019

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN RCA 7/2017 DATED 12-11-2018 OF ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROL APPELLATE JUDGE-IV(ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - IV), KOLLAM

¶9

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN RCOP 38/2014 DATED 20-01-2017 OF ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROL COURT, KOLLAM (ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT , KOLLAM)

¶10

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:

¶11

S.SURENDRAN, AGED 67 YEARS S/O. SREEDHARAN, ATTUPARAMBATHU VEEDU, PUNNATHALA CHERRY, KUREEPUZHA WEST WARD, KOLLAM TALUK, NOW AT MUNDALUMMOODU JUNCTION, THIRUMULLAVARAM. P.O., KOLLAM.

¶12

BY ADVS.

¶13

SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR SRI.I.STEVENSON

¶14

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:

¶15

A.ABDUL MAJEED, AGED 81 YEARS S/O. ABOOBACKER, AATTOOR VEEDU, PUNNATHALA CHERRY, KOLLAM WEST VILLAGE, KOLLAM 691 500

¶16

THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

RCRev..No.434 OF 2019 2

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Dated this the 25th day of November 2019

¶20

K.HARILAL, J.

¶21

The Revision Petitioner herein is the tenant who is confronting with an order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court, under section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and confirmed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority. The legality, propriety and regularity of the concurrent findings, whereby the courts below have passed the order of eviction, under the aforesaid provision are under challenge in this Revision Petition.

¶22

According to the respondent/landlord, he bona fide requires the petition schedule shop room for starting a ladies' fancy store and he has no job or any other sources of income for his livelihood. He has no other building of his own in his possession, to start the proposed fancy store. But, the revision petitioner/tenant is not depending upon the

¶23

RCRev..No.434 OF 2019 3

¶24

income from the business in the tenanted premises and several other buildings are available in the locality to shift his business from the tenanted premises. So, the respondent/landlord is entitled to get an order of eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act.

¶25

The revision petitioner/tenant resisted the said claim for eviction contending that the need projected in the petition is not bona fide and it is a ruse for eviction only. According to him, the respondent/landlord has another building of his own, bearing No.21, in his possession to start the said business and thereby the claim for eviction is negated by the first Proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act . So also, he contended that he is entitled to get protection under the second Proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act, as no other buildings are available in the locality and he is depending upon the income derived from the tenanted premises, for his livelihood.

¶26

After considering the aforesaid rival pleadings and evidence, the courts below concurrently found that the need projected is bona fide and the revision petitioner/tenant is

¶27

RCRev..No.434 OF 2019 4

¶28

not entitled to get protection under the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act and the claim for eviction is not negatived by the first Proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. The legality and propriety of the aforesaid findings are under challenge in this Revision Petition.

¶29

Heard the learned counsel for the Revision

¶30

Petitioner.

¶31

It is needless to say the scope and extent of consideration in a Revision Petition filed under Section 20 of the Act confined to examination of legality, propriety and regularity of the findings of the Court below only. The revisional Court is not expected to re-appreciate the entire factual findings on disputed facts, unless the findings of the courts below are perverse. Even if two views are possible, the revisional Court is not permitted to take a different view other than the concurrent views of the Courts below, unless the concurrent findings are perverse. Bearing the aforesaid legal proposition in mind, we have considered the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner.

¶32

RCRev..No.434 OF 2019 5

¶33

The learned counsel for the revision petitioner

¶34

advanced arguments mainly on the point that it has come out in evidence that the respondent/landlord had vacant possession of room No.21 and if the need projected was a bona fide one, he could have started the ladies' fancy store in the said building. Going by the impugned order, we find that this issue was considered by the courts below and rejected the said contention raised by the revision petitioner under the first Proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. It has come out in evidence that room No.21 was leased out to one Ramesan by the respondent/landlord and he got vacant possession of that room by filing R.C(O.P). No.28/2009. When cross examined, the respondent/landlord fairly admitted that he obtained vacant possession of room No.21, but subsequent to that he lost vacant possession of that room because, his daughter insisted for executing a settlement deed, with respect to that room, in her favour and he has done so. Now the ownership and possession of that room is with his daughter. In order to substantiate the said contention, he had produced Exts.A8 and A9 settlement

¶35

RCRev..No.434 OF 2019 6

¶36

deeds, which would show that now room No.21 belongs to the daughter of the respondent/landlord. That apart, it is not disputed that those settlement deeds were executed in 1999 and 2001. But the instant R.C(O.P) was filed in the year 2014. There is no evidence on record to show that from the year 1999 onwards the respondent was desirous of starting a ladies' fancy store. The year in which the respondent felt the need for starting ladies fancy store, was not brought on record, in evidence, by cross examination. In the absence of such evidence, it cannot be held that the aforesaid settlement deeds were executed, after the time at which respondent/landlord felt the need for starting the proposed business with a malafide intention to evict the revision petitioner from the tenanted premises.

¶37

In the above view, we find that the revision petitioner/tenant has miserably failed to prove that at the time of filing of the Rent Control Petition, the respondent/landlord has another building bearing No.21, in his possession, to start the proposed business. Hence, we do not find any illegality or impropriety in the impugned

¶38

RCRev..No.434 OF 2019 7

¶39

order, whereby the courts below had rejected the contention raised by the revision petitioner under the first Proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. No other point has been raised in this Revision Petition. Hence the Revision Petition is dismissed.

¶40

Learned counsel for the revision petitioner seeks time to vacate the tenanted premises. Having regard to the nature of business, which is being conducted in the tenanted premises, the revision petitioner is given six months' time from today to vacate the petition schedule building, on the following conditions:

¶41

(1) The revision petitioner/tenant shall file an affidavit, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the Execution Court or the Rent Control Court, as the case may be, expressing an undertaking that he will vacate the petition schedule shop room within six months from today.

¶42

(2) The revision petitioner/tenant shall deposit the entire arrears, if any, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the Execution Court or the Rent Control Court, as the case may be, and shall continue to pay the rent without default.

¶43

RCRev..No.434 OF 2019 8

¶44

(3) In the event of failure to comply with any of the conditions stated above, the time granted to vacate the premises will stand automatically vacated and the respondent/landlord will be at liberty to proceed with the execution of the eviction order.

Sd/-

K.HARILAL,JUDGE

Sd/-

C.S.DIAS,JUDGE

ajt

S.Surendran v. a.Abdul Majeed

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Surendran v. a.Abdul Majeed

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

Rasique M Vs Safnitha A.P

Biju Vs v.Suresh Babu

Puthiyapurayil Fathima @ Pathumma, Vs Fathima T.P.

Abraham Paul Vs the Federal Bank Ltd.

Goldie George Vs Anvy Parangottu Mathew

Chaithanya Bose Vs Director General of Police