Kerala High Court
Tharamannil Harris vs Reetha Pathmakumar on 23 August, 2023
RCR.178/2023 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 1ST BHADRA, 1945
RCREV. NO. 178 OF 2023
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT RCP 10/2018 OF MUNSIFF COURT, MANJERI
RCA 28/2022 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC), MANJERI
REVISION PETITIONER/S:
THARAMANNIL HARRIS
AGED 45 YEARS
S/O BEERAN, PROPRIETOR, THARAMANNIL STORE,
VAYAPPARAPADI MANJERI AMSOM AND DESOM MANJERI PO ,
ERNAD TALUK RESIDING AT THARAMANNIL HOUSE ,
VELLARANAHAL, VAYAPPARAPADI MANJERI AMSOM AND DESOM
MANJERI PO, ERNAD TALUK MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN -
676121
BY ADVS.
CHERIAN MATHEW POOTHICOTE
AJITH VILLY GEORGE
RESPONDENT/S:
REETHA PATHMAKUMAR,
AGED 56 YEARS
W/O PATHMAKUMAR ,VATTAKANDATHIL (REGAL) HOUSE, 22ND
MILES , MANJERI AMSOM AND DESOM MANJERI PO , ERNAD
TALUK MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676121
BY ADV K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON(K/218/1989) (Caveator)
THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RCR.178/2023 2
DR.A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., JJ
............................................................
RCRev. No. 178 of 2023
.............................................................
Dated this the 23rd day of August, 2023
ORDER
Mohammed Nias C.P., J
This revision is preferred by the tenant aggrieved by the judgment of the
Rent Control Appellate Authority/I Additional District Court, Malappuram, in RCA
No.28/2022 that affirmed the order of eviction passed in RCP No.10/2018 of the
Rent Control Court/Munsiff-Magistrate Court, Malappuram.
2. The respondent herein/the landlord filed an application under Section
11(3) Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short, 'Act')
contending that the petition schedule room was given on lease to the tenant from
2003 onwards and that her husband is not having any income or avocation and
therefore, she wanted to start a supermarket for which the petition schedule shop
room along with two adjacent shop rooms was needed. It was contended that the
adjoining shop rooms are already vacated by the tenants who occupied them, and
the supermarket can be started only after the petition schedule shop room is also
obtained.
3. The tenant resisted the petition, contending that the landlady has other
vacant buildings in her possession. Despite the same, he is sought to be evicted on
untenable grounds. It was also urged that the husband of the petitioner is not
dependent on the petitioner landlord.
4. After considering the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 and Exts.A1 to A5 on the
side of the petitioner and also the evidence of RW1 as well as the commission
report, the trial court found that the need projected was bona fide and ordered
eviction. The tenant filed an appeal against the order of eviction, contending that
the landlord had no bona fide requirement and that the tenant was depending on
the income derived from the business in the petition scheduled shop room, and
that there was no vacant room available in the locality to shift the business. The
appellate authority, after re-appreciation of the evidence, affirmed the order of
eviction passed by the trial court.
5. We have heard Sri.Cherian Mathew Poothicote, for the revision petitioner
and Sri.K.M. Sathyanatha Menon, the caveator for the respondent landlord.
6. Before us, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, apart from
reiterating the contentions urged before the Appellate Authority, contended that
the landlady had vacant rooms in her possession and, therefore, eviction should not
have been ordered going by the first proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. As
regards this contention, the appellate authority had clearly found that the shop
rooms found to be vacant were on the first floor of the building, which was not
suitable for the purpose alleged and that the need was sought for starting a
supermarket in the petition schedule building along with adjacent shop rooms
which were vacated by the tenants occupying them. This, we feel, should be taken
as a special reason under the first proviso to Section 11(3), and the courts below
have rightly dealt with the said contention under the first proviso and we find no
reason to interfere with the same. As regards the bona fide need sought, nothing
was brought out to discredit the need set up.
7. Regarding the second proviso, it was found that the commissioner had
found vacant rooms during his inspection and in such circumstances, the tenant
cannot be granted protection under the second proviso as both the limbs had to be
proved to be in his favour. The reasoning of the courts below on the aspect of the
second proviso is sound calling for no interference. We find that the appellate
authority had considered the facts and circumstances of the case and appreciated
the evidence from the right perspective. The order impugned is neither illegal,
improper nor irregular warranting interference under Section 20 of the Act.
Accordingly, we dismiss this revision.
8. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner sought a
reasonable time to vacate. Having considered the rival submissions and taking into
account the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to grant
six months' time, subject to the following conditions:
" (i) The respondent-tenant in the Rent Control Petition 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 schedule building to the
petitioner-landlady within six months from the date of this order and
that, he shall not induct third parties into possession of the petition
schedule building, and further he shall conduct any business in the
petition schedule building only on the strength of a valid
licence/permission/ consent issued by the local authority/statutory
authorities;
(ii) The respondent-tenant in the Rent Control Petition 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 four weeks 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;
(iii) Needless to say, in the event of the respondent-tenant in the Rent
Control Petition 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 schedule building will stand cancelled
automatically, and the landlady will be at liberty to proceed with the
execution of the order of eviction. "
Sd/-
DR.A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
JUDGE
okb/
