On 8th June 2018, The Supreme Court of India, 3 Judge bench upheld the order of the Appellant Court by rejecting the plea of eviction on the ground of bonafide requirement.
Factual Background
The Landlord filed the eviction petition against the tenant in respect of two rooms in question, on the grounds of arrears of rent, bonafide requirement and material damage to the premises U/S 11(2) (b), 11(8) and 11(4) (ii) of the Kerala Rent Control Act.
The Trial Court decreed the petition in favor of Landlord only on the ground of bonafide requirement by rejecting the other two grounds. As such eviction did not cause any hardship to the tenant in question.
The Appellant Court however did not appreciate the findings of the Trial Court, and put reliance upon the testimony of the witness who deposed that sufficient accommodation was available with the Landlord. Hence, it allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Trial Court.
In the revision petition, HC upheld of the Trial Court and allowed the eviction on the ground bonafide requirement by appreciating the material evidence on record pertaining to this issue.
The Apex Court held that the HC concerned exceeded its revisional jurisdiction. hence, it confirmed the order of the Appellant Authority, and, allowed the appeal and set aside the eviction order.
Case of the Petitioner and Respondent
The Appellant submitted before the Supreme Court that the landlord had sufficient accommodation to run his business effectively and he is ready to pay the arrears of rent.
The Respondent has submitted that the three grounds that are arrears of rent bonafide requirement and material damage to the premises for the eviction of the tenant. For the other two grounds, discussion by the order of the trial court and the third ground i.e. bonafide requirement was agreed on the ground of insufficient accommodation which was not appreciated by the SC, on the ground that it did not meet the ends of Justice.
Reasoning and decisions of the Court
The Supreme Court of India, in its findings, stated that
- Section 11(8) of the Kerala Rent Act is materially different from Section 13(2) of the Bombay Rent Act in that it does not provide for partial eviction if the comparative hardship of a landlord and a tenant are to be weighed against each other.
- that the landlord will be able to run his establishment in a better manner if he gets the schedule petition rooms, which will help to lead his establishment to prosperity, as compared with the tenant, who is not able to “establish much hardship to him”
Further, the SC upheld the order of the Appellant Court by rejecting the plea of eviction on the ground of bonafide requirement. It has also categorically stated that the HC exceeded its revisional jurisdiction.
Appeal allowed and the eviction order is set aside.
Case Details
Before: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice R.F Nariman, Justice Navin Sinha, Justice B.R. Gavai
Case Title: Addissery Raghavan v. Cheruvalath Krishnadasan
Decided on: 08-06-2020
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
