Dismissed

Suresh Babu.C.H v. Naseema Bai

Kerala HC15 Dec 2022RCRev./48/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the tenant's revision against orders upholding eviction due to the landlord's bona fide need for business premises. The court affirmed lower courts found that the tenant failed to prove jewelry was his main business source.

What did the court decide?

Tenanted premises vacated within three months on terms: surrender vacant possession via undertaking within four weeks; continue paying rent until handover.

Suresh Babu.C.H Vs Naseema Bai — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN

¶6

THURSDAY, THE 15^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA,

¶7

1944

¶8

RCREV. NO. 48 OF 2019

¶9

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.02.2018 IN RCA 97/2014 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & I ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THALASSERY AND ALSO AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30.01.2014 IN RCP 92/2012 OF MUNSIFF COURT,

¶10

THALASSERY

¶11

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:

¶12

SURESH BABU.C.H, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O LATE CHEKKIYAT ACHUTHAN, CHEKKIYAT HOUSE, P.O.KIZHUNNA, KANNUR-670 007.

¶13

BY ADV K.RAJESH SUKUMARAN

¶14

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:

¶15

1 NASEEMA BAI, AGED 65 YEARS, D/O.RABIA BAI, BUSINESS, ILLYAS MANSION, MAIN ROAD THALASSERY, KANNUR

¶16

2 SUBAIDA SOBANI, AGED 63 YEARS, D/O.RABIA BAI, NO.501, RESIDENCY ROAD, SADAR, NAGPUR, MAHARASHTRA-440 001.

¶17

3 FATHIMA, AGED 56 YEARS, D/O.RABIA BAI,MOOSA SAIT AND SONS, NOOR BUILDING, MAIN ROAD, OOTTY, TAMILNADU-643 001.

¶18

4 MUHAMMED HUSSAIN SAIT, S/O.ABDUL KAREEM SAIT,7 6 YEARS

¶19

5 ESSA SAIT, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED HUSSAIN

¶20

RCREV. NO. 48 OF 2019

¶21

..2..

¶22

SAIT,B USINESS, AGED 45 YEARS

¶23

6 MUHAMMED MOOSA SAIT, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O MUHAMMED HUSSAIN SAIT,

¶24

7 SAINABA SAHIR, AGED 35 YEARS, D/O MUHAMMED HUSSAIN SAIT, AGED 41 YEARS.

¶25

8 HAROON SUIT, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O MUHAMMED HUSSAIN SAIT

¶26

9 AYISHA BAI, W/O MUHAMMED MOOSA SAIT, AGED 41 YEARS, (RESPONDENTS NOS 4 TO 9 ARE RESIDING AT THAIPARAMBIL, CHOKKALINGAPURAM, VELLA KINAR WARD, ALAPPUZHA VILLAGE, PIN-688 001.

¶27

10 LAKSHMI.P, W/O.LATE CHEKKIYAT ACHUTHAN, AGED 72 YEARS.

¶28

11 PRATHEESH BABU.C.H, AGED 66 YEARS, S/O LATE CHEKKIYAT ACHUTHAN,

¶29

12 RANJINI.C.H, D/O LATE CHEKKIYAT ACHUTHAN, AGED 64 YEARS.

¶30

13 RAMESHAN.C.H, S/O LATE CHEKKIYAT ACHUTHAN, AGED 62 YEARS.

¶31

14 DINESHAN.C.H,, S/O LATE CHEKKIYAT ACHUTHAN,AGED 55 YEARS. (RESPONDENTS NOS 1O TO 14 ARE RESIDING AT CHEKKIYAT HOUSE,P.O.KUZHUNNA,KANNUR-670 007.).

¶32

15 RAJITHA.C.H, D/O LATE CHEKKIYAT ACHUTHAN, CHANDHOTH HOUSE, PERINGATHUR, PULIYANAMBRAM, THALASSERYTALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-673 632.

¶33

16 RESHMA.C.H, D/O LATE CHEKKIYAT ACHUTHAN, KANHIRAMPARA HOUSE, PERAVOOR, IRITTY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-673 642.

¶34

RCREV. NO. 48 OF 2019

¶35

..3..

¶36

17 PRAVEEN.C.H, S/O LATE CHEKKIYAT ACHUTHAN, CHEKKIYAT HOUSE, P.O.KUZHINNA, KANNUR-670 007.

¶37

BY ADVS. P.G.GOKULNATH SANTHARAM.P(S-1571) REKHA ARAVIND(K/2130/1999)

¶38

THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶39

..4..

¶40

RCREV. NO. 48 OF 2019

¶41

J U D G M E N T

¶42

A. Muhamed Mustaque, J

¶43

This revision was filed in the year 2018 by

¶44

the tenant, who has been ordered to be evicted on

¶45

the ground of bona fide need of the landlord.

¶46

Today, it has came up for admission. We

¶47

issued notice before admission to the landlord

¶48

and there is appearance on behalf of the landlord.

¶49

The need was projected on behalf of the 6^th respondent herein namely, Muhammed Moosa Sait.

¶50

He wants to start a business of pipe fittings and plumbing materials. He is conducting wholesale and retail business at Alapuzha. He wants to

¶51

have a branch at Thalassery. Both the Courts found in favour of the landlord. Both the Courts

¶52

also found that the tenant is not entitled to have protection under second proviso to Section

¶53

RCREV. NO. 48 OF 2019

¶54

11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control)Act, 1965 and he failed to prove that the Jewelry business conducted in the tenanted premises is his main source of income.

¶55

The learned counsel for the landlord submits that the landlord is having vacant building in his possession including the upstairs of the tenanted premises. Therefore, there is no difficulty to the landlord to start such business in the vacant room in their possession.

¶56

residential building. The landlord wants to start business in the vacant building along with the tenanted premises. The landlord explained

¶57

that he requires the entire building for the purpose of his business.

¶58

disbelieve the version of the landlord. An

¶59

attempt has been made at this stage by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner

¶60

RCREV. NO. 48 OF 2019

¶61

pointing out that the entire building has been

¶62

put up for sale in a social website by name, OLX and therefore, there is no pressing need for the landlord to occupy the tenanted premises. We are not persuaded to accept this argument at this stage and there is no dispute to the fact that the building is still in the ownership of the landlord.

¶63

circumstances we are of the view that the orders impugned warrants no interference invoking revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, this revision petition dismissed. However, we grant

¶64

three months time from today to vacate the building on the following terms and conditions:

¶65

before the Rent Controller that he will surrender the vacant possession of the building within a

¶66

period of three months from today. That

¶67

undertaking shall be filed within a period of

¶68

RCREV. NO. 48 OF 2019

¶69

..7..

¶70

four weeks.

¶71

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

¶72

Sd/A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE

¶73

Sd/-

¶74

SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN JUDGE

¶75

Suresh Babu.C.H v. Naseema Bai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Babu.C.H v. Naseema Bai

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

M.J.Varghese Vs Elizabeth Joseph

Vijayalakshmi, Vs Sundaran

Prejith .K.B Vs Valsala.K

P.V Abdul Salam Vs Thayoth Puthiyapurayil Sahira @ Shahira

Kovilillath Abdulla Vs Puliyullaparambath Kunhammad

Paul Varghese Vs Meeran