Raji C.G vs Krishsivaraman
2024 Latest Caselaw 14276 Ker

Kerala High Court

Raji C.G vs Krishsivaraman on 29 May, 2024

Author: Amit Rawal

Bench: Amit Rawal

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
             THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
                                  &
             THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.
 WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF MAY 2024 / 8TH JYAISHTA, 1946
                     R.C.REV. NO. 63 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.02.2023 IN RCA NO.62 OF 2017
OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,THRISSUR ARISING OUT OF
THE ORDER DATED 29.11.2014 IN RCP NO.49 OF 2011 OF MUNSIFF
                         COURT,CHAVAKKAD
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:

            RAJI C.G
            AGED 54 YEARS
            W/O ODATT ASOKAN,
            THAIKKATT AMSOM & DESOM,
            CHAVAKKAD THALUK, THRISSUR,
            PIN - 680506
            BY ADVS.
            RAJIT
            AJAIY BASKAR


RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:

            KRISHSIVARAMAN
            AGED 35 YEARS
            S/O SIVARAMAN, PALISSERY HOUSE, ANNAKKARA AMSOM,
            THAMARAPPULLY DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR,
            PIN - 680506
     THIS     RENT   CONTROL    REVISION    HAVING    COME    UP    FOR
ADMISSION    ON   29.05.2024,    THE     COURT   ON   THE    SAME   DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 R.C.Rev. No. 63/2024                        2

                 AMIT RAWAL & EASWARAN S., JJ.
                       =================
                    R.C.Rev. No. 63 of 2024
                ==============================
             DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF MAY, 2024.
                                            ORDER

AMIT RAWAL, J.

The present petition is directed against the

concurrent finding of fact, whereby the eviction petition

filed by the respondent-landlord for eviction on the

ground of non-payment of arrears of rent and personal

necessity as provided under Section 11(3) of the Kerala

Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 has been

allowed. The appeal preferred against the same has also

been dismissed.

2. The respondent-landlord instituted the petition

for seeking eviction of the petitioner-tenant on the

grounds mentioned herein above on the premise that his son

is a student of engineer and would be setting up his

business by connecting three rooms which are in his

possession including the rented premises. It was

categorically stated that the petitioner-tenant is having

properties, other source of income and is thus not

dependent upon the livelihood of the income derived from

the scheduled property.

3. The petitioner-tenant objected to the

maintainability of the petition and as well as the

allegations of personal necessity and categorically stated

that she is dependent upon the income for livelihood and

non-occupation of other rooms which are in possession

would not be a ground for seeking personal necessity.

Since the parties were at variance, learned Rent

Controller framed the following issues:-

"1. Whether rent is in arrears and if petitioner is entitled for eviction under Section 11(2)(b) of the Act?

2. Whether the need put forward by the petitioner is a bonafide one, if so whether the petitioner is entitled for eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act?

3. Whether the respondent is entitled to get the protection under provision 1 and 2 of Section 11(3)?

4. What is the order as to cost?"

4. It is pertinent to mention that along with the

present Rent Control Petition, respondent-landlord has

also filed R.C.P. Nos.48/2011 and 53/2011 seeking eviction

against another tenants who were in occupation of the

other rooms in the said building. The petitioner-tenant

was proceed ex-parte at the stage when the matter was

listed for his evidence. On the basis of unrebutted and

corroborated evidence, the learned Rent Controller ordered

for eviction. The appeal preferred against the order has

also been dismissed. The learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the petitioner submitted that petitioner-tenant

had two options, either to file an application under Order

IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting

aside the ex-parte order or to appeal. In that

background, the appeal was preferred. The respondent-

landlord has not been able to prove the ground of eviction

through the testimony of witnesses PW1, PW2 and documents

Exts.A1 to A4. The son of the respondent-landlord for whom

the personal necessity was sought, during the pendency of

petition, had graduated, become an engineer and taken a

job. Therefore, the personal necessity as sought for no

longer stood.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the

parties and appraised the paper book.

6. We are of the view that the tenant cannot

dictate the landlord to do a kind of business, as sought

for. A person cannot be permitted to remain idle and would

definitely instead of sitting at home pick up a vocation

or a job to remain busy and await the decision of the rent

petition to start the proposed business as set up in the

petition. The tenant has not been able to lead any

evidence as noticed above as she was proceeded ex-parte.

No ground for interference is made out. Revision

petition stands dismissed.

SD/-

AMIT RAWAL, JUDGE

sd/-

EASWARAN S., JUDGE DCS