Kerala High Court
George Alexander vs George Alexander on 2 March, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
TUESDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 11TH PHALGUNA, 1942
RCRev..No.237 OF 2017
[AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN RCA NO.17/2015 DATED 28-03-2017 ON THE
FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY-VI, KOLLAM
[AGAINST THE ORDER IN R.C.(OP)NO.5 OF 2012 DATED 6-4-2015 ON THE
FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER, KOLLAM]
REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 GEORGE ALEXANDER
S/O.GEORGE MUTHOOT, MANAGING DIRECTOR,MUTHOOT FINANCE
LTD., HEAD OFFICE, ERNAKULAM,REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED
OFFICER AND ASST.MANAGER(IN-CHARGE), SAJAN S.
2 THE MANAGER
MUTHOOT FINANCE LTD., ANANDAVELEESWARAM
BRANCH,KOLLAM, REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER AND
ASST.MANAGER (IN-CHARGE), SAJAN S.
BY ADVS.
SRI.ABDUL JALEEL.A
SMT.M.A.SULFIA
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:
1 SUNILKUMAR
S/O.THANKAPPAN PILLAI, EASWARI VILASOM VEEDU,MANAYIL
KULANGARA CHERRY, HOUSE NO.305,WARD NO.48,
THIRUMULLAVARAM P.O., KOLLAM WEST VILLAGE, KOLLAM.
2 ANILKUMAR
EASWARI VILASOM VEEDU,MANAYIL KULANGARA CHERRY, HOUSE
NO.305,WARD NO.48, THIRUMULLAVARAM P.O., KOLLAM WEST
VILLAGE, KOLLAM.
3 AJIKUMAR
EASWARI VILASOM VEEDU,MANAYIL KULANGARA CHERRY, HOUSE
NO.305,WARD NO.48, THIRUMULLAVARAM P.O., KOLLAM WEST
VILLAGE, KOLLAM.
R.C.R.No.237 of 2017 2
R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN
R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.M.NEELAKANDAN
R1 BY ADV. SRI.SABU GEORGE
R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN
THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
02.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
R.C.R.No.237 of 2017 3
O R D E R
Dated this the 2nd day of March 2021
...
Ziyad Rahman A.A., J.
This revision petition was filed by the tenants challenging the
order dated 28.03.2017 in R.C.A.No.17 of 2015 of the Additional Rent
Control Appellate Authority-VI, Kollam confirming the order of eviction
passed by the Additional Rent Control Court, Kollam in R.C.(OP) No.5
of 2012 under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent
Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act').
2. The rent control petition was filed by the respondents herein
seeking an order of eviction on the ground that they require the building
for their own occupation. According to the respondents/landlords, the
petition schedule building which is situated on the first floor of Pezhathil
building was owned by their father. During the lifetime of their father, he
entered into a lease agreement with the petitioners/tenants herein for a
monthly rent of Rs.7,000/-. After the death of the father, the respondents
herein became the owners. It is contended by the respondents herein
that the respondents want the petition schedule building for the purpose
of starting a computer coaching centre/DTP centre. It was also averred
that, the wife of the 1st respondent is a B.Com degree holder and she
has undergone the course of M.S.office and ADCA. It was also averred
that the wife of the 2nd respondent is a B.Com degree holder and the
wife of the 3rd respondent is a holder of T.T.C. All of them are
unemployed and for the purpose of improving the standard of life of the
respondents, they intend to start a computer centre in the petition
schedule building. Even though they requested the petitioners/tenants
to vacate the premises, they refused to do so. The Rent Control Petition
was filed in the above circumstances by the respondents/landlords.
3. The petitioners/tenants filed objection contending that the
need projected by the landlords is not bona fide and they do not have
any expertise or qualification to start a computer institution as claimed
by them. The evidence in this case consists of the oral testimony of
PW1 and Exhibits A1 to A8 were marked from the side of the
respondents/landlords. RW1 was examined and Exhibits B1 and B2
were marked from the side of the petitioners/tenants. After hearing both
sides, the Rent Control Court allowed the Rent Control Petition and
passed an order of eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act.
4. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners herein
filed R.C.A.No.17 of 2015 before the Additional Rent Control Appellate
Authority- VI, Kollam. The said appeal was dismissed by the Rent
Control Appellate Authority as per the order dated 28.3.2017. The
present Revision Petition is filed challenging the same.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners/tenants as also
the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents/ landlords.
6. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the
petitioners is that the need projected by the landlords is not bona fide.
Even though they claimed that they want the petition schedule building
to start a computer institution consisting of coaching classes for
computer study, job works, maintenance and sale of computer
apparatus, neither the respondents herein nor their wives are having
requisite qualifications for the same, as claimed by them. It was
contended that, even though the wife of the 1 st respondent is qualified in
M.S.office and ADCA, no documents to substantiate the same was
produced. The documents produced were only the educational
qualifications of them and none of the said qualifications pertain to
computer application relating to the operation of computer. Pointing out
the above aspects the counsel for the petitioners have contended that
the need projected by the landlords is not bona fide and it is only a ruse
for eviction.
7. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents
contended that the landlords want to establish a computer centre
offering various types of courses and other facilities relating to the
same. In order to conduct such an institution, it is not necessary that the
person conducting the same should have qualification and experience
for the same. They can very well conduct such an institution by
engaging qualified persons to run the same.
8. After taking into account of the materials on record, we are
of the opinion that, there is some force in the contentions put forward by
the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents/landlords. The absence
of technical qualification in computer, cannot be treated as a
disqualification to conduct a computer institution. As pointed out by the
learned Senior Counsel, it is always open for the parties to engage
qualified persons for the said purpose and they can very well operate
the same through such qualified persons. Therefore, the absence of
qualification in computer, cannot be treated as a ground to conclude
that the need projected by the respondents/landlords is not bona fide.
Therefore, the contentions of the learned counsel for the
petitioners/tenants are liable to be rejected. The question of application
of second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act does not arise in this case
in the facts and circumstances of this case. Thus on examination of the
entire facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the opinion that,
there are no grounds to interfere with the orders passed by the Rent
Control Appellate Authority as well as the Rent Control Court. In the
above circumstances, the Revision Petition is devoid of merits and
hence dismissed.
9. However, taking note of the fact that, the tenants are in
occupation of the petition schedule building from 16.7.2008 onwards, it
is just and proper that, some time be granted for vacating the premises.
Hence, we hereby grant a time limit of 8 months from the date of the
order, to vacate the petition schedule building, subject to the following
conditions:
a) The petitioners/tenants shall file an affidavit before the Rent
Control Court within one month from today undertaking to vacate the
premises within eight months from today ;
(b) The petitioners/tenants shall pay entire arrears of rent, if
any, within one month from today and shall continue to pay
compensation for use and occupation of the building at the contractual
rate, in future, without any default.
(c) In case of default on the part of the petitioners/tenants in
complying with any of the conditions above, the respondents/land lords
shall be at liberty to proceed further, as if no time is granted by this
court for vacating the premises.
Parties shall suffer their respective costs.
Sd/-
A.HARIPRASAD
JUDGE
Sd/-
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
pkk JUDGE
