Dismissed

Dr.Mubaris Ahammed v. Kanhirakkandiyil Rabiya

Kerala HC9 Mar 2021RCRev./55/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a revision against an eviction order under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, the court upheld the eviction of a tenant who failed to adduce evidence to counter the landlady's bona fide need for business conduct. The revision was dismissed subject to a one-year leave to vacate.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition is dismissed subject to the tenant vacating the premises by 31.12.2021 and paying arrears of rent without fail.

Dr.Mubaris Ahammed Vs Kanhirakkandiyil Rabiya — Partition | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 18TH PHALGUNA, 1942

¶7

RCRev..No.55 OF 2021

¶8

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN RCA 107/2019 OF RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY/ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, VATAKARA DATED 5.2.2021

¶9

AGAINST THE ORDER IN RCP 12/2018 OF RENT CONTROLLER/MUNSIFF COURT, NADAPURAM DATED 22.02.2019

¶10

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:

¶11

DR.MUBARIS AHAMMED AGED 30 YEARS

¶12

S/O AHAMMED, THARAMMAL HOUSE, AJANJERY AMSOM, DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673 544.

¶13

BY ADVS. SMT.K.REEHA KHADER SRI.O.T.JABISH SHRI.MOHAMMED ASLAM P.S

¶14

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:

¶15

KANHIRAKKANDIYIL RABIYA

¶16

AGED 42 YEARS

¶17

D/O POKKER HAJI, KUNHIPARAMBATH HOUSE, VALAYAM AMSOM, DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK, VALAYAM P.O.KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673 571.

¶18

BY ADV. SRI.ZUBAIR PULIKKOOL

¶19

THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

R.C.R.No.55/2021

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 9^th day of March 2021

¶24

DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, J.

¶25

The tenant before the Courts below challenges the eviction ordered under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short 'the Act').

¶26

The respondent before us is the landlady. She field eviction petition under Section 11(3) of the Act alleging that her husband and son are jobless and they wanted to start a business of their own in the petition schedule building to seek out the livelihood of the entire family. She contended that she has no other building in her possession for the said purpose. The oral demand made by the landlady to vacate the rooms was turned down by the tenant and hence she filed RCP.

¶27

The tenant filed counter statement. The landlord-tenant relationship was admitted. The bonafide need set up was denied. The tenant sought for protection of 2^nd proviso to Section 11 (3) of the Act. It is contended that the he is conducting a Unani Clinic in the petition schedule building and the income derived from it is his main source of livelihood. He also contended that there are no other vacant suitable building available in the locality.

¶28

Parties went on trial. On the side of the landlady, her

¶29

R.C.R.No.55/2021

¶30

¶31

husband was examined as PW1. No oral evidence was adduced by the tenant. The Rent Control Court, after analysing evidence found that landlady is in bonafide need of the petition schedule building and accordingly the petition was allowed directing the tenant to give vacant possession of the petition schedule shop room to the landlady.

¶32

In appeal filed by the tenant, the eviction order was confirmed. Challenging the concurrent findings of the courts below this revision has been filed by the tenant.

¶33

The landlady has entered appearance through counsel. We heard both sides.

¶34

To prove the bonafide need projected by the landlady, the husband of the landlady was examined as PW1. He reiterated the need alleged in the petition. The need alleged is that he along with his son wanted to start a hotel business in the petition schedule building. It has come out in evidence that the husband of the landlady is now jobless. He lost his job in Gulf about 6 years back. The financial capacity of the parties is also not in dispute. The son of the landlady is also without any job. Even though PW1 was cross examined, nothing tangible was extracted from his cross examination to discredit his testimony. On an entire analysis of the evidence of PW1, both the courts below found that the landlady succeeded in proving the bonafide need. Moreover, no rebuttable evidence had been adduced by the tenant.

¶35

R.C.R.No.55/2021

¶36

¶37

Even though the tenant has sought for protection under the 2^nd proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act, he did not adduce any evidence. Needless to say that the burden is entirely upon the tenant to prove both ingredients of the 2^nd proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act which he failed to discharge. We find no reason to interfere with the findings on facts of the courts below in the exercise of our revisional jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Act.

¶38

The learned counsel for the revision petitioner sought one year time to vacate the premises. We feel that time can be granted till 31.12.2021 on the following conditions.

¶39

The tenant shall pay the arrears of rent, if any, within one month and shall continue to pay the monthly rent without fail.

¶40

An affidavit shall be filed by the tenant before the court below undertaking that he will vacate the building unconditionally on or before 31.12.2021.

¶41

The affidavit as above shall be filed on or before 8.4.2021.

¶42

The parties shall suffer their respective costs. In the result, revision petition is dismissed subject to the above conditions.

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JUDGE

¶47

True copy P.A to Judge

R.C.R.No.55/2021

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶53

ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN RCA 107/2019 ON THE FILE OF RENT CONTROLLER APPELLATE AUTHORITY/ADDL DISTRICT COURT VATAKARA DATED 5.2.2021

¶54

ANNEXURE A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN RCP 12/2018 ON THE FILE OF RENT CONTROLLER/ MUNSIFF, NADAPURAM DATED 22.2.2019

Dr.Mubaris Ahammed v. Kanhirakkandiyil Rabiya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.Mubaris Ahammed v. Kanhirakkandiyil Rabiya

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.C.Saibu Vs Kandiyil Meethal Shareer

Gireesh C.L. Vs Simi

Satheesh Kumar Vs K.Balasubramanian

Suraj, Vs Archana

Amrutha D.K. Vs Arun P.

Vivek Muraleedharan Vs Nil