Kerala High Court
Brunesh Somaraj vs Sobhana Rasikalal Thakkare on 9 July, 2025
Author: A.Muhamed Mustaque
Bench: A.Muhamed Mustaque
R.C. Rev. No. 134/2025 :1:
2025:KER:50396
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JOHNSON JOHN
WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 18TH ASHADHA, 1947
RCREV. NO. 134 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 05.10.2017 IN RCA NO.8 OF 2011 OF
RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY-V, KOLLAM ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER
DATED 12.10.2010 IN RCOP NO.6 OF 2006 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, PUNALUR
REVISION PETITIONERS/LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE DECEASED APPELLANT IN
RCA:
1 BRUNESH SOMARAJ, AGED 50 YEARS
S/O LATE SRI. N.SOMARAJAN, JUNO MAHAL, KALAYANADU, PLACHERY
P.O., PUNALUR,VALAKKODU VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691
331.
2 BRUNDA SOMARAJ, AGED 53 YEARS, D/O LATE SRI. N.SOMARAJAN,
JUNO MAHAL, KALAYANADU, PLACHERY P.O., PUNALUR,VALAKKODU
VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691 331.
3 K.SULOCHANA, AGED 75 YEARS, W/O LATE SRI. N.SOMARAJAN, JUNO
MAHAL, KALAYANADU, PLACHERY P.O., PUNALUR,VALAKKODU VILLAGE,
KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691 331.
BY ADVS.
SRI.R.SURAJ KUMAR
SRI.SUNIL J.CHAKKALACKAL
SMT.SREELAKSHMI J PILLAI
RESPONDENTS/LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE DECEASED RESPONDENTS IN RCA:
1 SOBHANA RASIKALAL THAKKARE
W/O LATE DR.JOHNSON (ROBY), RESIDING AT VAISAK BUNGALOW,
VANMALA, PIRAVANTHOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT,, PIN - 689
696.
2 JOEL MONCY JOHNSON, AGED 39 YEARS
S/O LATE DR.JOHNSON (ROBY), RESIDING AT VAISAK BUNGALOW,
VANMALA, PIRAVANTHOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT., PIN - 689
696.
3 ABEL RASIKALA JOHNSON
AGED 35 YEARS
S/O LATE DR.JOHNSON (ROBY), RESIDING AT VAISAK BUNGALOW,
R.C. Rev. No. 134/2025 :2:
2025:KER:50396
VANMALA, PIRAVANTHOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 689 696.
BY ADVS.
SRI.S.VIDYASAGAR
SHRI.SAURAV B.
SMT.SAFNA P.S.
THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
09.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
R.C. Rev. No. 134/2025 :3:
2025:KER:50396
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE & JOHNSON JOHN, JJ.
---------------------------------------------------------
R.C. Rev. No. 134 of 2025
---------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 9th day of July, 2025
ORDER
Johnson John, J.
The revision petitioners are the tenants. The landlady filed eviction petitions against different tenants on the grounds under Sections 11(2)
(b) 11(3) and 11(4)(iv) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 ('the Act' for short).
2. The bona fide need projected under Section 11(3) of the Act was that the son of the landlady wants to construct a residential building after demolishing the tenanted premises. It is specifically pleaded that the son of the landlady is a psychologist working in NIMHANS at Bangalore and on his retirement, he wants to set up a clinic nearby and reside in the proposed new residential building after demolishing the tenanted premises. The Rent Control Court and the appellate authority found that the need is genuine and also found that the tenants are not entitled to the protection under the provisos to Section 11(3) of the Act.
3. It is vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners that the original petitioners before the Rent Control Court are no more and therefore, the need projected has abated, in as much as R.C. Rev. No. 134/2025 :4: 2025:KER:50396 the landlady and his son are no more. But, a perusal of the pleadings would show that the construction of the residential building is for the family of the son, who is the second petitioner in RCOP No.6 of 2006. His legal heirs are now on record. Since the need projected is the need of the family of the original second petitioner and not for his individual occupation, it cannot be held that the said need to occupy a residential building is lost merely for the reason that the original 2 nd petitioner is not alive.
4. When a need is projected for the purpose of a residential building for the family, it becomes the need of everyone in that family and therefore, it cannot be held that the need projected has abated on the death of the original 2nd petitioner. Normally, the crucial date of cause of action is the filing date of application for eviction. But, subsequent events can be taken into account to mould the reliefs, if the court is in a position to form an opinion that the cause of action does not survive further. But, as noticed earlier, in this case, the need projected is for the purpose of constructing a new residential building for the family of the original 2nd petitioner and therefore, we find that the cause of action will survive even after the death of the original 2 nd petitioner. Therefore, we find absolutely no reason to entertain this revision petition.
R.C. Rev. No. 134/2025 :5:
2025:KER:50396 In the result, the Rent Control revision petition is dismissed in limine sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE.
sd/-
JOHNSON JOHN, JUDGE.
Rv R.C. Rev. No. 134/2025 :6: 2025:KER:50396 APPENDIX OF R.C.REV.NO. 134/2025 PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE DATED 29.05.2023 ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS, PUNALUR MUNICIPALITY.
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE DIAGNOSIS DATED NILL ISSUED BY THE SENIOR CONSULTANT, KIMS HOSPITAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE SUMMARY DATED NILL ISSUED FROM THE AMRITA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE AND RESEARCH CENTER.
Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE SUMMERY DATED NILL ISSUED BY THE ST.JOSEPH'S MISSION HOSPITAL, ANCHAL.
RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL /True Copy/ P.S to Judge.
rv