Dismissed¶47

Kallingal Musthafa v. Jameela Valliyakath

Kerala HC8 Apr 2025RCRev./71/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Kerala rent control revision; Section 11(3) bona fide need; Section 11(4)(v); second proviso to Section 11(3); cessation of occupation exceeding six months; Commission report; aluminium utensils business; co-owner landlord; four months' time to surrender possession; affidavit of unconditional undertaking; deposit of rent arrears; automatic cancellation of time on default; Tirur; Malappuram; High Court of Kerala.

What did the court decide?

Four months' time to surrender vacant possession of the petition-scheduled shop room, subject to: affidavit of unconditional undertaking filed within two weeks (with no induction of third parties); deposit of the entire arrears of rent within one month and continued monthly payment; default cancels the time automatically. ¶47

Kallingal Musthafa Vs Jameela Valliyakath — Kerala HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶47

Issue for consideration

Whether the claim of bona fide need under Section 11(3) of the Act - commencement of an aluminium-utensils business by PW1, a co-owner of the building - justified eviction of the tenant. +2 more

¶41

Court's answer

This Court found no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority, including their finding that the landlord's need was bona fide.

¶46

Ratio / Principle

As evidenced by the Commission report, the tenant had ceased to occupy the premises continuously for a period exceeding six months without sufficient reasons, and no reasonable cause was shown for the prolonged non-occupation.

¶46

Key takeaways

In consequence, the tenant is disqualified from claiming the benefit of the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act.ratio¶46
The Rent Control Revision Petition is dismissed.ratio¶47
Notwithstanding dismissal, four months' time was granted to the petitioner to surrender vacant possession of the petition-scheduled shop room to the respondents, subject to conditions.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Rent Control Revision (R.C.Rev.No. 71 of 2025, High Court of Kerala) - eviction under Sections 11(3) and 11(4)(v), Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 - concurrent findings of the Rent Control Court, Tirur (RCP No.15 of 2019, order dated 18.01.2021) and the Rent Control Appellate Court, Tirur (RCA No.17 of 2022, order dated 25.10.2024) that the landlord's need - commencement of an aluminium-utensils business by PW1, a co-owner - was bona fide - tenant denied the protection of the second proviso to Section 11(3): Commission report showed continuous non-occupation exceeding six months without sufficient reasons, and the premises were dust-laden and stained - no reasonable cause shown for prolonged non-occupation - revision dismissed - four months granted to surrender vacant possession subject to: affidavit of unconditional undertaking within two weeks, deposit of entire arrears of rent within one month with continued monthly payment, and no induction of third parties; default auto-cancels the time, freeing the landlords to execute the eviction order.

¶1

RCR 71 of 2025 1 2025:KER:30343

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶5

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR

¶7

TUESDAY, THE 8^TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 18TH CHAITHRA, 1947

¶8

RCREV. NO. 71 OF 2025

¶9

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 25.10.2024 IN RCA NO.17 OF

¶10

2022 OF RENT CONTROL APPELLATE COURT, TIRUR ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER DATED 18.01.2021 IN RCP NO.15 OF 2019 OF RENT CONTROL COURT,

¶11

TIRUR

¶12

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:

¶13

KALLINGAL MUSTHAFA, AGED 38 YEARS S/O. KALLINGAL MUHAMMEDKUTTY KALLINGAL HOUSE TIRUR P.O TIRUR AMSOM DESOM TIRUR TALUK MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676101

¶14

BY ADVS. BINDUMOL JOSEPH C.P.GOPIKA

¶15

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 9/PETITIONERS 1 TO 8 AND LEGAL HEIRS

¶16

OF THE 2ND PETITIONER:

¶17

1 JAMEELA VALLIYAKATH

¶18

AGED 72 YEARS, W/O. LATE KUNHAYMMU ABHILASH H.NO. 18/1168, PUTHIYARA P.O, TIRUR TALUK MALAPPURAM DT., PIN - 673004

¶19

2 PATHU VALIYAKATH (DIED) W/O PUTHIYAVEETTIL MUHAMMED, THAJUDDIN, PUTHIYA VEETTIL HOUSE, NEAR VENNAKKAL KADAAVU,

¶20

RCR 71 of 2025 2

¶21

2025:KER:30343

¶22

TRIPRAYAR, VALAPPAD P.O, TRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680567

¶23

3 AYISHA VALIYAKATH AGED 75 YEARS, W/O. LATE ANVERMOOSA HOUSE NO. 34/1285 B. MOTHER THERESA ROAD EDAPPALLY. PO EMAKULAM. NOW RESIDING AT 1002, 10 TH FLOOR. AL-OWAIS TOWER. ELECTRA STREET, ABU DHABI UAE, PIN - 682024

¶24

4 ZUBEDA YAQUB TAYLOR AGED 51 YEARS, W/O YAQUB UMER TAYLOR, OMA TOPAS SARJAPUR ROAD, AGRA CIRCLE, BANGLORE NOW RESIDING AT B-205 LIWA BUILDING MANKHOOL, BEHIND BURJUM. DUBAI, UAE, PIN - 560034

¶25

5 ZULEKHA MUHAMMED BASHEER AGED 59 YEARS, W/O. MUHAMMED BASHEER PUTHIYAPURAYIL, BASHEER MANZIL THIKKODI PO MELADI VIA, KOZHIKODE NOW RESIDING AT FLAT NO. 31. BLDG NO. 189, RD NO.2608 MANAMA 326, AL-QUDAYBIYAH, PIN - 673529

¶26

6 RAMLA AKBAR VALIYAKATH AGED 54 YEARS, W/O. LATE AKBAR VALIYAKATH ADBULLAKUTTY. BF, NORTH BLOCK, GLENDALE POINT BANK ROAD, CALICUT, NOW RESIDING AT ALI REZA COMPOUND, VILLA 21, GATE 1651, ROAD 85, BLOCK 505, MAQUBA, BAHRAIN, POST BOX NO.23135., PIN - 673001

¶27

7 YASMIN AKBAR VALIYAKATH, AGED 34 YEARS, W/O. MOHAMMED SHABEER ABBAS, 8 F, NORTH BLOCK, GLENDALE POINT, BANK ROAD, CALICUT NOW RESIDING AT ALI REZA COMPOUND, VILLA 21, GATE 1651, ROAD 85, BLOCK 505, MAQUBA, BAHRAIN, POST BOX NO.23135., PIN - 673001

¶28

8 SANAA AKBAR VALIYAKATH AGED 32 YEARS, S/O. LATE AKBAR VALIYAKATH ADBULLAKUTTY, 8F, NORTH BLOCK, GLENDALE POINT, BANK ROAD, CALICUT NOW RESIDING AT ALI REZA COMPOUND, VILLA 21, GATE 1651, ROAD 85,

¶29

RCR 71 of 2025 3 2025:KER:30343 BLOCK 505, MAQUBA, BAHRAIN, POST BOX NO.23135., PIN - 673001

¶30

9 SARAFUDHEEN, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O. PATHU VALIYAKATH, PUTHIYAVEETTIL(H), VENNAKKAL KADAVU, THRIPRAYAR, VALAPPAD.P.O., THRISSUR DT., PIN-, PIN – 680567 SRI.SREENATH GIRISH

¶31

THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

¶32

08.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

RCR 71 of 2025

2025:KER:30343

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE & P.KRISHNA KUMAR, JJ

¶37

R.C.Rev.No. 71 of 2025

¶38

Dated this the 8^th day of April, 2025

¶39

O R D E R

¶40

A.Muhamed Mustaque.J

¶41

The petitioner-tenant challenges the order of eviction concurrently passed against him under Section 11(3) and Section 11(4)(v) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The claim for eviction under Section 11(3) is based on the bona fide need for starting a business by PW1, who is presently one of the co-owners of the building. Originally, the Rent Control Petition was instituted by Smt. Fathima Umma @ Pathumma Umma, seeking eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act. The tenant failed to secure the benefit of the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. During the pendency of the Rent Control Petition, Smt. Fathima Umma passed away, and her legal heirs have been brought on record. It is submitted that the legal heirs have no objection to PW1 commencing the proposed business. PW1 intends to start a business in aluminium utensils in the tenanted premises.

¶42

Both the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority have concurrently found that the landlords need is bona fide

¶43

RCR 71 of 2025 5

¶44

2025:KER:30343

¶45

and also held that the tenant is not entitled to the protection under the

¶46

second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. It has come out on record, as evidenced by the Commission report, that the tenant has ceased to occupy the premises continuously for a period exceeding six months without sufficient reasons. In this context, the tenant is disqualified from claiming the benefit of the second proviso to Section 11(3). No reasonable cause has been shown by the tenant for the prolonged nonoccupation of the premises. The Commission report further details the condition and nature of the building, noting that the tenanted premise is found to be dust-laden and stained. In view of the above, we find no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings rendered by both the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority.

¶47

Therefore, this Rent Control Revision Petition is dismissed. However, considering the fervent plea made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, four months' time is granted to the petitioner to surrender vacant possession of the petition-scheduled shop room to the respondents, subject to the following conditions:

¶48

(i) The tenant shall file an affidavit before the Rent Control Court or the Execution Court, as the case may be, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, expressing an unconditional undertaking that he will surrender vacant possession of the petition-scheduled shop

¶49

RCR 71 of 2025 6 2025:KER:30343 room to the respondents-landlords within four months' from the date of this order and that, he shall not induct third parties into possession of the petition-scheduled shop room.

¶50

(ii) The petitioner-tenant shall deposit the entire arrears of rent as on date, if any, before the Rent Control Court or the Execution Court, as the case may be, within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, and shall continue to pay rent for every succeeding month, without any default;

¶51

(iii) Needless to say, failing to comply with any one of the conditions stated above, the time limit granted by this order to surrender vacant possession of the petition-scheduled shop room will stand cancelled automatically, and the landlords will be at liberty to proceed with the execution of the order of eviction.

¶52

Sd/-

¶53

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE

¶54

Sd/-

¶55

P.KRISHNA KUMAR, JUDGE

¶56

dlk/8.4.

Kallingal Musthafa v. Jameela Valliyakath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kallingal Musthafa v. Jameela Valliyakath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.K. Noorudeen Vs Mohammed Idries

Dr Ranjith Ram, S/O a Raman, Vs State of Kerala

P.Gopalakrishnan@Dileep Vs State of Kerala

Greeni Aruja @ Greeni John Aruja Vs Ranjith Varghese

V K Udayan Vs C K Jinan

Shyja Santhosh, Vs State of Kerala