Dismissed

Prejith .K.B v. Valsala.K

Kerala HC14 Dec 2022RCRev./185/2022

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 High Court upheld the concurrent finding that the lessor's bona fide need to start a catering business justified eviction, dismissing the tenant's claim of mala fides.

What did the court decide?

Revision dismissed; tenant granted six months time to vacate the building subject to filing an undertaking and continuing to pay rent till vacant possession is handed over.

Prejith .K.B Vs Valsala.K — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶3

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 /
23RD AGRAHAYANA, 1944

¶5

RCREV. NO. 185 OF 2022

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.09.2022 IN RCA
NO.25/2020 OF THE RENT CONTROL APPELLATE
AUTHORITY ERNAKULAM CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF
THE TRIAL COURT IN RCP NO.49/2017 UNDER
SEC.11(3) OF THE KERALA (BUILDING LEASE AND
RENT CONTROL) ACT, 1965

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER:

¶8

PREJITH K. B.
AGED 45 YEARS
S/O BALAKRISHNAN (LATE),
DOOR NO.XX/386, "VYSHNAVAM",
VYRELIL NAGAR, VNRA-6, MARKET ROAD,
TRIPPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM,
PIN CODE-682301.
BY ADV VINCENT RAPHAEL

¶9

RESPONDENT:

¶10

VALSALA K.
AGED 65 YEARS,
W/O T.R.RAVEENDRAN,
"SURYA PRABHA", HOSPITAL ROAD,

¶11

¶12

RCREV. NO. 185 OF 2022

¶13

NEAR RLV SCHOOL, TRIPUNITHURA,
ERNAKULAM,
PIN CODE-682301.

¶14

THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP
FOR ADMISSION ON 14.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

RCREV. NO. 185 OF 2022

¶16

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

¶19

In this revision, the tenant questions a

¶20

concurrent finding of order of eviction
under section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings
(Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for
short 'the Act') upholding the bona fide
need of the lesser.

¶21

2. The lesser is a retired Section
Officer from Cochin University of Science
and Technology (CUSAT). On retirement, she
wants to start a catering business in the
petition schedule building, which is a
residentialbuildinglocatedwithin

¶22

Trippunithura Municipality. Both courts

¶23

¶24

RCREV. NO. 185 OF 2022

¶25

found in favour of the lesser and ordered
eviction.

¶26

3. In this revision, the learned Counsel
for the tenant would argue that this
building is unfit for starting catering
business and there are vacant lands and
buildings in possession of lesser to start
such business. He further argued that,
before filing the Rent Control Petition,
lesser had sent a notice demanding
Rs.40,000/- per month, as rent. This has
been cited as an oblique motive on the part
of lesser, in seeking eviction. The present
rate of rent payable is Rs.8,500/-. It is
also submitted that lesser attempted to
evict the tenant forcibly and tenant was

¶27

¶28

RCREV. NO. 185 OF 2022

¶29

constrained to move Civil Court for
obtaining reliefs against lesser against
forcibleeviction.LearnedCounsel
submitted that these are all circumstances,
which point out that lesser has no bona
fides and the present petition is only a
mere ruse to evict him.

¶30

4. In regard to the other building
alleged to be in possession of the lesser,
no materials have been placed before the
Rent Control Court or the Appellate
Authority and therefore, we cannot consider
any objection raised on behalf of the
tenant. In regard to the demand raised by
the lesser for enhanced rate of rent of
Rs.40,000/- per month in the year 2015, we

¶31

¶32

RCREV. NO. 185 OF 2022

¶33

are of the view that nothing inhibits
lesser demanding enhanced rates, and that
demand cannot be treated as an ill motive
or mala fides, on the side of lesser
seeking eviction subsequently. The present
Rent Control Petition was filed in the year
of 2017, after two years of such demand.
Probably for the reason that tenant not
favourably responded to the request for the
enhancement of rent, lesser thought of
having an additional income by starting
such catering business. Therefore, mere
demand for enhanced rent cannot be
considered as a factor affecting bona fides
of the lesser.

¶34

¶35

RCREV. NO. 185 OF 2022

¶36

5. The next contention was regarding the

¶37

attempt of the lesser to evict the tenant
forcibly. The Civil Court has already gave
protection to the tenant from the lesser
for the forceful eviction. That attempt,
perhaps cannot also lead to a conclusion
that lesser was entertaining any ill-motive
as against the tenant, but secure a vacant
possession of tenant premises. The desire
and need of a human is fluctuating. The
need projected will have to be tested
objectively to find out there was a strong
desire for a lesser to start such business.
The circumstances clearly would show that
the need projected is genuine and bona
fide. It is also found that the tenant is
not entitled to have protection under

¶38

¶39

RCREV. NO. 185 OF 2022

¶40

second proviso to section 11(3) of the Act

¶41

for the simple reason that the tenanted
premises is a residential building. In such
circumstances,wefindthatboth
authorities below proceeded to decide the
fact on proper perspective which warrants
nointerferenceinvokingrevisional

¶42

jurisdiction.

¶43

Revision dismissed. However, we grant

¶44

six months time to the tenant to vacate the
building on the following terms and
conditions:

¶45

i) The tenant shall file an undertaking
before the Rent Controller that he will
surrender the vacant possession of the
building within a period of six months, from

¶46

¶47

RCREV. NO. 185 OF 2022

¶48

today. That undertaking shall be filed within
a period of four weeks.

¶49

ii) The tenant will continue to pay the
rent till the vacant possession is handed
over.

¶50

SD/-

¶51

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE

¶52

SD/-

¶53

SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN JUDGE

¶54

BR

Prejith .K.B v. Valsala.K

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prejith .K.B v. Valsala.K

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

Ressy James Vs Jinsi George

Vijayalakshmi Vs Sundaran

Kuzhikandathil Karunakarakurup Vs 1. Accomodation Controller and Tahsildar

Meharab Bachan Vs B Vijayalakshmi

Sreelatha Sunilkumar Vs N.S.S. Karayogam 2124

M.J.Varghese Vs Elizabeth Joseph