Kerala High Court
Jayanandan.T vs C.A.Fathimabi @ Pathummabi on 5 August, 2025
Author: A.Muhamed Mustaque
Bench: A.Muhamed Mustaque
1
R.C.Rev.No.144 of 2025 2025:KER:58300
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON
TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 14TH SRAVANA, 1947
RCREV. NO. 144 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 01.02.2025 IN RCA NO.99 OF 2023 OF
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT KOZHIKODE-III / II ADDITIONAL MACT/RENT
CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY IV, KOZHIKODE ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER
DATED 15.07.2023 IN RCP NO.69 OF 2022 OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT,
KOZHIKODE-I
----------
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 JAYANANDAN T., AGED 62 YEARS,
S/O. RAMAN, 59/1372 (OLD 13/651B),
RAILWAY STATION LINK ROAD, POST CHALAPPURAM,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673002.
2 SOMAN T., AGED 68 YEARS,
S/O. RAMAN, 59/1372 (OLD 13/651B),
RAILWAY STATION LINK ROAD, POST CHALAPPURAM,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673002.
BY ADV.SRI.V.T.MADHAVANUNNI
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:
1 C.A.FATHIMABI @ PATHUMMABI, AGED 76 YEARS,
D/O. MARIYAMBI, 'BAITHIL FATHIMA', BAJANA KOVIL LANE,
POST CHALAPPURAM, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673002.
2
R.C.Rev.No.144 of 2025 2025:KER:58300
2 C.A.SUBAIDA, AGED 72 YEARS,
D/O. MARIYAMBI, 'HASANA BARAMI', K.R.MENON ROAD,
POST THIRUVANKULAM NADA, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673029.
3 C.A.AMINABI, AGED 70 YEARS,
D/O. MARIYAMBI, 14/370A, PONNARAKKAL,
WEST KALLAI, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673003.
4 C.A.AYISHABI, AGED 68 YEARS,
D/O. MARIYAMBI, 14/370A, PONNARAKKAL,
WEST KALLAI, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673003.
5 C.A.SAFIYA, AGED 60 YEARS,
D/O. MARIYAMBI, C.A HOUSE, KUTTICHIRA,
HEAD POST OFFICE, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673001.
6 C.A.KUNHIBI, AGED 55 YEARS,
D/O. MARIYAMBI, C.A HOUSE, KUTTICHIRA,
HEAD POST OFFICE, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673001.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.P.K.IBRAHIM
SMT.K.P.AMBIKA
SMT.ZEENATH P.K.
SMT.JABEENA K.M.
SHRI.ANAZ BIN IBRAHIM
SHRI.PRADEEP KUMAR A.
SHRI.AJAZ A BACKER
THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.08.2025,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
R.C.Rev.No.144 of 2025 2025:KER:58300
ORDER
Harisankar V.Menon, J.
The tenants are the revision petitioners herein. The
respondents herein - the landlords approached the Rent Control
Court seeking eviction under Section 11(3) of the Kerala
Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short, the
'Act'). The bona fide need projected by the landlords before
the Rent Control Court was the requirement for starting a
boutique by respondents 5 and 6 herein. The Rent Control
Court, by its order dated 15.07.2023, found the need projected
as above a genuine one and hence, ordered the Rent Control
Petition directing the revision petitioners herein to surrender
vacant possession of the petition schedule premises. The
appeal filed by the revision petitioners herein was rejected
pursuant to the appellate order dated 01.02.2025. Hence, they
have filed the captioned Rent Control Revision Petition.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners
and the learned counsel for the respondents.
R.C.Rev.No.144 of 2025 2025:KER:58300
3. The main contention urged before us by the learned
counsel for the revision petitioners is to effect that the eviction
was sought for when the revision petitioners herein refused to
enhance the rent. It is his contention that the bona fide need
pointed out was not genuine. However, we notice that the Rent
Control Court has categorically found that no evidence was
brought on record to show that the need projected by the
respondents herein was not bona fide. We also notice that the
Rent Control Court has considered the contention raised by the
petitioners herein regarding the area and shape of the room,
which, according to them, was not suitable for carrying out the
business as contended by the landlords, finding that it is the
lookout of the landlords. We further notice that the Rent Control
Court has also considered the claim on the basis of the first and
second provisos to Section 11(3) of the Act and found that the
aforementioned provisions are also not attracted to the case at
hand. We also notice that the petitioners have not adduced any
R.C.Rev.No.144 of 2025 2025:KER:58300
evidence in support of their contention with respect to the
second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. The Appellate Court
has also considered the contentions raised and has decided the
issue against the petitioners herein, in our opinion, quite rightly.
We are of the opinion that the findings in the orders issued
by the Rent Control Appellate Authority cannot be faulted.
Therefore, we find no merit in this Rent Control Revision Petition
and the same is dismissed; however, by granting six months'
time to the revision petitioners - tenants to surrender vacant
possession of the shop room to the landlords, subject to the
following conditions:
(i) The revision petitioners - tenants 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 they will surrender vacant
possession of the shop room to the respondents-
landlords within six months from the date of this order
and that, they shall not induct third parties into
possession of the shop room and further they shall
R.C.Rev.No.144 of 2025 2025:KER:58300
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 revision petitioners - tenants 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
two 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 revision petitioners -
tenants failing to comply with any one of the conditions
stated above, the time limit granted by this order to
surrender vacant possession of the shop room will stand
cancelled automatically and the respondents - landlords
will be at liberty to proceed with the execution of the order
of eviction.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
JUDGE
Sd/-
HARISANKAR V. MENON
JUDGE
ln
