Kerala High Court
Prabhakaran vs Prabhakaran on 3 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 03rd DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 14TH MAGHA, 1942
RCRev..No.7 OF 2021
[AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN RCA NO.2/2018 DATED 06-08-2020 ON THE
FILE OF THE RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THRISSUR WHICH AROSE
FROM THE ORDER DATED 8.11.2017 IN RCP NO.44/2014 ON THE FILE OF
THE RENT CONTROL COURT, CHAVAKKAD.]
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:
PRABHAKARAN
AGED 73 YEARS
S/O. PERUMPILAYI KELU, PERUMPILAYI HOUSE, THAIKKAD
VILLAGE, NENMINI DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR
DISTRICT-680104.
BY ADVS.
DR.V.N.SANKARJEE
SRI.V.N.MADHUSUDANAN
SMT.R.UDAYA JYOTHI
SRI.M.M.VINOD
SMT.M.SUSEELA
SMT. KEERTHI B. CHANDRAN
SHRI.VIJAYAN PILLAI P.K.
SHRI.PATHROSE C.
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
R.V.MUHAMMED,
S/O. RAYAMMARAKKAR VEETIL SAITHALI HAJI, AGED 69,
RAYAMMARAKKAR VEETIL, THAIKKAD AMSOM ,
CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680104.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR
THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
18-01-2021 ALONG WITH RCRev.NO.8/2021, THE COURT ON 03.02.2021
PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
RCR Nos.7 & 8 of 2021 2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 03rd DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 14TH MAGHA, 1942
RCRev..No.8 OF 2021
[AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN RCA 3/2018 DATED 06-08-2020 ON THE
FILE OF THE RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THRISSUR WHICH
AROSE FROM THE ORDER DATED 8.11.2017 IN RCP NO.43/2014 ON THE
FILE OF THE RENT CONTROL COURT, CHAVAKKAD]
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:
JOSE
AGED 68 YEARS
S/O. ALOOR THOMAKUTTY, ALOOR HOUSE, THAIKKAD
VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT,PIN-
680 104, (RIJO STORE-HOTEL RVEES REGENCY BUILDING,
OPP.BALAKRISHNA THEATRE, EAST NADA, GURUVAYOOR
-PIN-680 104)
BY ADVS.
DR.V.N.SANKARJEE
SRI.V.N.MADHUSUDANAN
SMT.R.UDAYA JYOTHI
SRI.M.M.VINOD
SMT.M.SUSEELA
SMT. KEERTHI B. CHANDRAN
SHRI.VIJAYAN PILLAI P.K.
SRI.C.PURUSHOTHAMAN NAIR
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
R.V.MUHAMMED, AGED 69 YEARS, S/O. RAYAMMARAKKAR
VEETIL SAITHALI HAJI, RAYAMMARAKKAR VEETIL,
THAIKAD AMSOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT-
680 104
R1 BY ADV. SRI.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR
THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
18-01-2021 ALONG WITH RCRev..7/2021, THE COURT ON 03.02.2021
PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
RCR Nos.7 & 8 of 2021 3
O R D E R
Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2021
...
Kunhikrishnan, J.
These two Rent Control Revisions are
connected, and hence these Revisions are disposed
of by a common judgment.
2. R.C.R.No.7 of 2021 is filed against the
judgment dated 6.8.2020 in R.C.A.No.2 of 2018 on
the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority,
Thrissur, which arose from the order dated
8.11.2017 in R.C.P.No.44 of 2014 on the file of
the Rent Control Court, Chavakkad. R.C.R.No.8 of
2021 is filed against the judgment dated 6.8.2020
in R.C.A.No.3 of 2018 on the file of the Rent
Control Appellate Authority, Thrissur, which arose
from the order dated 8.11.2017 in R.C.P.No.43 of
2014 on the file of the Rent Control Court,
Chavakkad.
3. The Rent Control Appellate Authority
considered R.C.A.No.2/2018, 3/2018 along with two
other connected appeals and disposed of all the
four cases by a common judgment.
4. The Revision Petitioners are the tenants.
The common respondent in these two revisions is
the landlord (Hereinafter the Revision Petitioners
are referred to as 'tenants,' and the respondent
is referred to as 'landlord').
5. The landlord filed the Rent Control
Petition to evict the tenants from the petition
schedule building, and the Rent Control Petition
was filed mainly on the ground under Section 11(8)
of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent
Control)Act, 1965 (for short 'the Act'). The Rent
Control Court considered R.C.P.No.43 of 2014 and
R.C.P.No.44 of 2014 along with two other Rent
Control Petitions. The Rent Control Court ordered
eviction under Section 11(8) of the Act. Aggrieved
by the eviction order, the tenants filed appeal
before the appellate authority, and the appellate
authority confirmed the order of eviction. Hence,
these Revisions are filed.
6. The landlord filed the Rent Control
Petitions mainly with the following common
grounds. The landlord is the absolute owner of the
petition schedule rooms, and the rooms were leased
out to the respective tenants. After the landlord
purchased the building, he constructed three
additional floors in the building. The said three
floors are being used as a lodge. The landlord
constructed a building on the northern property,
and an auditorium is being run in the said
building. The auditorium and the lodge situate as
a single structure. The reception counter of the
auditorium is being used as the reception counter
of the lodge also. The said reception counter is
not having road frontage from the main road.
According to the landlord, the reception counter
is tiny and it does not have launch facility. The
landlord contended that, the construction of
modern reception counter with launch facility is
essential for the development of the lodge. The
landlord also submitted before the Rent Control
Court that, there is no lift facility available to
the lodge. The lift facility is to be provided
near the reception counter, and that is essential
for the development of the business. The
landlord's further case is that, the access
through the staircase has to be constructed to the
lodge. Therefore, the landlord bonafide requires
the possession of the petition schedule rooms and
three rooms situated on the western side and one
located on the eastern side to cater to the above
needs. The landlord contends that, the landlord
requires additional accommodation. According to
the landlord, the hardship caused to the tenants
on account of eviction is less than the hardship
that will be caused to the landlord, in case the
eviction is not allowed. Hence, the Rent Control
Petition was filed by the landlord to evict the
tenants.
7. The tenants filed objection mainly with the
following common contentions:
According to the tenants, the lodge and
auditorium are not situated as a common structure.
The tenants contended that, the auditorium and
lodge have separate reception counters. According
to the tenants, there is road frontage from the
main road to the auditorium and the reception
counter. The case of the landlord to the effect
that, the reception counter is a tiny and a modern
reception counter with launch facility has to be
constructed, and the facility of lift has to be
provided, and the above facilities will enhance
the business prospects of the landlord are all
denied by the tenants. According to the tenants,
the alteration of the present building is not
possible. The alleged bonafide requirement of the
landlord for additional accommodation was disputed
by the tenants. The tenants also submitted that,
other rooms are not available in the locality for
the tenants to shift their respective business.
According to the tenants, they depend for their
livelihood on the income being derived from their
business. Hence, the tenants submitted that, the
hardship caused to the tenants would outweigh the
advantage that will be caused to the landlord.
Hence, the tenants prayed the dismissal of Rent
Control Petitions. As per the order in
I.A.No.7085/2017 a joint trial was ordered in
R.C.P.Nos.39/2014, 41/2014, 42/2014, 43/2014, and
44/2014 treating R.C.P.No.39/2014 as the leading
case.
8. To substantiate the case, PW1 and PW2 were
examined on the side of the landlord. RW1 to RW7
were examined on the side of the tenants. Exhibit
A1 to A17 and B1 to B12 are the exhibits marked by
the parties. Exhibits C1 to C6 and X1 to X4 were
also marked.
9. After going through the evidence and
documents, the Rent Control Court ordered eviction
under Section 11(8) of the Act.
10. Aggrieved by the eviction order, the
tenants filed appeal. The appellate authority,
after considering the contentions of the tenants,
dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the above,
these Revisions are filed challenging the order in
R.C.A.Nos.2/2018 and 3/2018 of the Rent Control
Appellate Authority, Thrissur.
11. Heard the learned counsel for the tenants
and the learned counsel for the landlord.
12. The counsel for the tenants submitted that,
the order of eviction passed by the lower
authorities are without considering the
contentions of the tenants. They contended that,
the Rent Control Appellate Authority did not
consider or appreciate any of the grounds raised
by the tenants. The counsel for the tenants
submitted that, no change in the construction of
the existing building could be done, and it is not
permissible also. According to the counsel, the
landlord has not produced any building permit or
plan in this regard nor has pleaded that he
obtained permit for the proposed construction.
Hence, the tenants submitted that, there is no
bonafide as required under Section 11(10) of the
Act.
13. The counsel for the landlord submitted
that, the revision filed by the other two tenants
challenging the order in R.C.A.No.1/2018 and
R.C.A.No.4/2018 of the Rent Control Appellate
Authority was dismissed by this Court as per
common order dated 17.11.2020 in R.C.R.No.188/2020
and R.C.R.No.191/2020. The counsel for the
landlord submitted that, there is nothing to
interfere with the concurrent finding against the
tenants by the lower courts. The counsel submitted
that, the petition schedule building is situated
adjacent to the famous Guruvayoor Sreekrishna
Temple and the landlord wants the plaint schedule
building for additional accommodation. The counsel
submitted that, there is nothing to disbelieve the
evidence adduced by the landlord. The counsel
submitted that, the lower authorities are
perfectly justified in ordering the eviction under
Section 11(8) of the Act.
14. It is an admitted fact that, the Rent
Control Court ordered eviction under Section 11(8)
of the Act and the same is confirmed by the
appellate authority. The essential ingredients to
be established for an eviction under Section 11(8)
of the Act are the following:
i) The landlord should share in
occupation of his building with a tenant;
ii) The landlord should be in
requirement of additional accommodation for
his occupation alone;
iii) The landlord should have a bonafide
claim;
iv) The landlord should satisfy the
court that the hardship that may be caused
to the tenant while getting the premises in
eviction will not outweigh the advantages to
him.
As far as the first ingredient mentioned above is
concerned, there is no serious dispute from the
side of the tenants. A perusal of the Rent Control
Petition shows that, the landlord has projected
the following grounds in support of the need to
get the possession of the petition schedule rooms
by way of additional accommodation. According to
the landlord a tiny room attached to the
auditorium is being used as reception room of the
lodge also. The landlord needs possession of the
petition schedule rooms to construct a modern
reception room with a launch facility. It is also
the case of the landlord that, the lodge does not
have the facility of lift. The landlord wants to
install a lift adjacent to the proposed reception
room after getting vacant possession of the
petition schedule rooms. The landlord also
submitted that, he wants to construct a staircase
leading to the 1st, 2nd and 3rd floors of the
building. It is brought out from the evidence
adduced by the parties that, there is no
independent reception counter to the lodge. It is
also clear from the evidence that, the lodge is
not having a lift facility. In such circumstances,
the landlord's case has to be accepted to the
effect that, if the above facilities are provided,
the business with respect to the running of the
lodge will increase. Admittedly, the plaint
schedule rooms are situated very near to the
Guruvayoor Sreekrishna Temple, which is a
pilgrimage centre where thousands of devotees from
different parts of the world are coming every day.
If the landlord is able to convert the building to
a lodge with modern facilities including a modern
reception room and facility of lift, that will
definitely enhance the business prospects of the
landlord in running the lodge. The contention of
the tenants that, the present facilities are
sufficient to run the lodge in a profitable manner
cannot be accepted. The tenants cannot dictate to
the landlord about the way in which the landlord
should improve his business. The question is
whether the landlord can run the business in a
more profitable and prosperous manner by providing
the proposed additional facilities. The very
nature of the business of running the lodge and
the proximity of the lodge to Guruvayoor
Sreekrishna Temple are crucial factors as found by
the appellate authority and it will probabalise
the case of the landlord to the effect that,
providing of additional facilities are essential
to run the lodge in a more prosperous manner. The
contention that, the landlord did not produce the
permit and plan for the proposed renovation work
has no relevance in the facts and circumstances of
this case. That is not a condition precedent for
filing a petition for eviction under Section 11(8)
of the Act. The landlord can take steps for the
same only after getting favourable orders in the
rent control proceedings. As rightly observed by
the Rent Control Appellate Authority, there is
nothing brought out in evidence to conclude that
the landlord will not be able to obtain permit and
plan to carryout the proposed renovation.
Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of this
case, it is clear that, the prayer of the landlord
to get the plaint schedule rooms for additional
accommodation is bonafide. The nature of the
business conducted by the landlord and the place
where the business is conducted by the landlord,
it is clear that, the hardship that may be caused
to the tenant by getting the premises in eviction
will not outweigh the advantage to him. We see no
reason to interfere with the impugned judgment
passed by the Rent Control Court which is
confirmed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority.
15. Moreover, the two revisions filed by two
other tenants as R.C.R.No.188/2020 and
R.C.R.No.191/2020 against the common judgment in
R.C.A.No.1/2018 and R.C.A.No.4/2018 were already
dismissed by this Court. R.C.A.No.2/2018 and
R.C.A.No.3/2018, which are impugned in these
revisions are disposed of by a common judgment
along with R.C.A.No.1/2018 and R.C.A.No.4/2018 by
the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thrissur.
Since the connected revisions are dismissed,
unless there are any special circumstances or
points to be raised by the tenants, this Court
cannot entertain these revisions. No special
circumstances or any other serious contentions are
raised by the tenants in these revisions
also. Therefore, these revisions are also
to be dismissed in the light of the order
dated 17.11.2020 in R.C.R.No.188/2020 and
R.C.R.No.191/2020 passed by this Court. At this
stage, the learned counsel for the tenants
submitted that, the tenants in R.C.R.No.118/2020
and R.C.R.No.191/2020 were granted time to vacate
the premises till 22.11.2021. The tenants in these
revisions also may be given time till 22.11.2021.
That submission is reasonable, according to us.
But the tenants should pay the arrears of rent and
also to continue to pay the contract rent as
compensation for use and occupation of the
building till the petition schedule rooms are
vacated.
In the result these revisions are dismissed,
granting time till 22.11.2021 to the tenants for
evicting the petition schedule rooms on the
following conditions:
i) The tenants will file an undertaking before
the Rent Control Court to the effect that, they
will vacate the petition schedule premises on or
before 22.11.2021.
ii) The tenants will pay the entire arrears of
rent and also will continue to pay the contract
rent as compensation for use and occupation of the
building till they vacate the premises;
iii) If any of the above two conditions are
violated, the landlord is free to proceed with the
execution of the eviction order.
Sd/-
A.HARIPRASAD
JUDGE
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
pkk JUDGE
