Kerala High Court
K V Sumil vs Mananthalapadannayil Suharabi on 21 September, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 30TH BHADRA,
1945
RCREV. NO. 67 OF 2022
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 24.01.2022 IN RCA NO.59 OF
2020 OF THE RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, KOZHIKODE
(ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT) CONCURRING WITH THE COMMON
ORDER IN RCP NO.116 OF 2015 DATED 31.01.2020 OF THE RENT
CONTROL COURT (ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF), KOZHIKODE-II
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:
K V SUMIL, AGED 38 YEARS
S/O KUYYADAVAZHIYIL SURENDRAN, NORTH BEYPORE,
NADUVATTOM AMSOM DESOM,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673015
BY ADVS.
N.ABHILASH
PRAVEEN K. JOY
E.S.SANEEJ
M.P.UNNIKRISHNAN
M.K.SAMYUKTHA
DEEPU RAJAGOPAL
SANDRA S.KUMAR
SWAPNA C.P
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
MANANTHALAPADANNAYIL SUHARABI, AGED 55 YEARS
D/O KUNHIRAYIN KUTTY, NORTH BAYPORE,
NADUVATTOM AMSOM DESOM,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673015
BY ADVS. FIROZ K.M.
M.SHAJNA(K/1017/2006)
THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 21.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
R.C.Rev.No.67 of 2022 -:2:-
P.B.SURESH KUMAR & P.G.AJITHKUMAR, JJ.
-----------------------------------------------
R.C.Rev. No.67 of 2022
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of September, 2023
ORDER
P.B.Suresh Kumar, J.
The tenant in a proceedings for eviction under Section
11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (the
Act) is the petitioner in this revision petition.
2. The subject matter of the proceedings is a shop
room in the ground floor of a commercial complex. The case set out
by the landlady in the eviction petition is that her son Muhammed
Nisar does not have any occupation or income; that he intends to
start a ready-made garment manufacturing unit; that the tenanted
premises is suitable for conducting the said business; that neither
the landlady nor her son has in their possession any other premises
suitable for the said business and that the tenant, in the
circumstances, is liable to be evicted from the premises for the said
purpose. The tenant contested the proceedings contending, among
others, that the need set out in the eviction petition is not bona fide.
3. The Rent Control Court rejected the contention
aforesaid of the tenant and ordered eviction, and the said decision
has been affirmed by the Appellate Authority. It is aggrieved by the
said decision of the authorities below that the tenant has come up in
this revision petition.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the revision
petitioner as also the learned counsel for the respondent.
5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has
raised two contentions. The first contention is that the landlady has
not given any evidence in the proceedings in support of her plea
that she needs the premises bona fide for the occupation of her son.
The second contention is that the son of the landlady namely,
Muhammed Nisar, for whose need the tenant is sought to be evicted
and who has given evidence in the proceedings on behalf of the
landlady as PW1 admitted in cross-examination that he intends to
establish a unit with 20 sewing machines and the area covered by
the tenanted premises is not sufficient for the said purpose.
According to the learned counsel, the said evidence of the son of the
landlady would demonstrate that there is no bona fides at all in the
claim. The learned counsel for the respondent resisted the
contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the tenant pointing
out that the son of the landlady holds a power of attorney of the
landlady and therefore, it was not necessary for her to give
evidence in the case when her son himself is giving evidence in the
proceedings. It is all the more so since the need set out is for the
son of the landlady, submits the counsel. The learned counsel has
also submitted that what is deposed by the son of the landlady in
cross-examination is about his future plan in the proposed business
and the same would not, in any manner, affect the bona fides of the
claim. The learned counsel for the respondent has also made
available the copies of the eviction petition and the evidence
tendered by the son of the petitioner as PW1 in the proceedings.
6. The relevant pleadings in the eviction petition as
regards the claim under Section 11(3) of the Act read thus:
"ഹരജക രയട മകൻ മഹമദ നസ ർ എനവർ ഇപ ൾ പജ ലപ
വരമ നപമ മപ ഇല ട! ടവറട! രകക ണ . ! ട% പടക ൽ
വവരച പ* കമറ ൽ മഹമദ നസ ർ എനവർക ഒര ടറഡടമ ഡ
യണ തങ ന തവ ൻ !*രമ നചരകന. അ!ന പവണ എല
സഹ സഹകരണങള7 ട8യ ടക ടകവ ൻ ഉമ ഹരജക ര
!യ റ ടളതമ ണ . മഹമദ നസ ർ എനവർക പമൽ പസ വച
പക ര7 ടറഡടമ ഡ യണ ത ങ ന തവ നള പരജ നവ7 ക%വ7
ഉള! ണ. ഹരജക രയട മകന പമൽ പസ വച മഹമദ നസ ർ
എനവർക ഹരജ ടക പ* കമറ ൽ പമൽ പസ വച പക ര7 ഒര
ടറഡടമ ഡ യണ ന തവ ൻ ഉതമവശF സമ
സFന വശHമള! ണ. ആ !ന ഹരജ ടക പ* കമറ
അനപ ജHമ ടളതമ ണ. ആ !ന അനപ ജHമ പവടറ പ* കമറകൾ
ഹരജക രയട യ7 മകടJയ7 കകവശ7 ഇല ത! ണ"
As evident from the extracted passage, there was no case for the
landlady in her pleadings that her son proposes to establish a unit
with 20 sewing machines. Instead, the case set out by her in the
eviction petition in essence, was only that her son does not have
any occupation or income and that he therefore, intends to establish
a garment manufacturing unit. True, in answer to a question put in
cross-examination by the learned counsel for the tenant about the
nature of business proposed by him, PW1 stated that he intends to
engage 20 persons in his proposed unit. It was also conceded by
him in cross-examination that more than 3 sewing machines cannot
be kept in the tenanted premises. It is based on the said evidence of
PW1 that the learned counsel for the tenant has raised the second
contention. The relevant portion of the deposition of PW1 reads
thus:
"20 ന മകളൽ Tailors ടന വചട ണ ഞ ൻ Readymade Unit
ത ങ ൻ ഉപNശകന!. Ladies വസങള ണ ഉപNശകന! . ഹർജ
പടക 10 അ ന*ള7 , 8 അ വ*! പണ ? (Q) നപഷധകനcorrect
അറ !ടക ണ ണ (A). 3 machine ന കട!ൽ അവട
വക ൻ വക ൻ പ തല എന പറഞ ൽ ശര പണ ?(Q) ശര ണ
(A) ബ ക 17 machine ഞ ൻ മ മറകളൽ വക7. ട! ട അടത 10
മറകൾ ഉണ. അവട ണ വക ൻ ഉപNശകന! (A)"
As seen from the extracted deposition, PW1 has clarified in his
evidence itself that he intends to find place for accommodating the
remaining persons/sewing machines in the adjacent rooms.
7. The question is whether it could be contended that
there is no bona fides at all in the claim put forward by the landlady
merely for the reason that the tenanted premises is not sufficient to
accommodate 20 persons. As noted, the landlady has not stated in
the eviction petition that her son intends to establish a unit with 20
persons. What was pleaded is only that he intends to start a
garment manufacturing unit. It is in the context of the manner in
which PW1 proposes to have his business in future, it was stated by
him that he intends to have 20 persons in his unit. As noted, it was
readily clarified by him that he is going to use the remaining part of
the building of the landlady also for the said purpose. The learned
counsel for the tenant attempted to argue that there is nothing on
record to indicate that the landlady or PW1, has in their possession
any other part of the building. As already noticed, what is stated by
PW1 in his evidence is his future plan as to the proposed business.
He did not say that the business proposed by him cannot be
conducted in the tenanted premises. In a case of this nature, what
the court is expected to see is only as to whether the need set out is
bona fide. The answers given by PW1 in cross-examination to the
specific questions put to him, according to us, do not in any manner
affect the bona fides of the landlady. It is all the more so since it is
for the son of the landlady to decide in what manner he should
conduct his business. In the said view of the matter, we do not find
any illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the decisions of the
authorities below as regards the claim under Section 11(3) of the
Act.
8. Coming to the contention that the landlady has not
tendered evidence in the proceedings, the materials on record
indicate that PW1 holds the power of attorney of the landlady. This
fact is not disputed by the tenant. That apart, as noted, the very
purpose for which the tenant is sought to be evicted is for
accomplishing the need of PW1 himself. In as much as PW1 has
given evidence in the proceedings, we do not think that it was
necessary for the landlady to give evidence to sustain a claim for
eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act. The revision petition, in the
circumstances, is without merits and the same is accordingly
dismissed.
9. However, having regard to the facts and
circumstances of the case as also the orders passed in similar and
identical revisions, six months' time is granted from today to the
petitioner to surrender vacant possession of the premises on
condition that he shall file an unconditional undertaking before the
Rent Control Court within two weeks from today to vacate the
tenanted premises within six months and also that he shall pay the
arrears of rent, if any, within the aforesaid time limit and continue to
pay the monthly rent on or before the tenth day of every succeeding
month, till he vacates the premises.
Sd/-
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.
Sd/-
P.G.AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE.
ds
