Kerala High Court
Suresh V M vs Chengot Abdul Samad on 25 August, 2025
Author: A.Muhamed Mustaque
Bench: A.Muhamed Mustaque
1
RCRev.No.158 of 2025 2025:KER:64149
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON
MONDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 3RD BHADRA, 1947
RCREV. NO. 158 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 03.06.2025 IN RCA NO.15 OF 2024 OF
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, KOZHIKODE/RENT CONTROL APPELLATE
AUTHORITY-II/I ADDITIONAL MACT, KOZHIKODE ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER
DATED 09.11.2023 IN RCP NO.82 OF 2016 OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT,
KOZHIKODE-I
------------
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/COUNTER PETITIONER:
SURESH V.M., AGED 63 YEARS,
S/O.BALAKRISHNAN, 16/689, VM MOTORS,
FRANCIS ROAD, NEAR SLRC, NAGARAM AMSOM DESOM,
KOZHIKODE TALUK, PIN - 673003.
BY ADV.SRI.C.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:
1 CHENGOT ABDUL SAMAD, AGED 46 YEARS,
S/O.LATE ALAVI HAJI, RESIDING AT CHENGOT HOUSE,
M.C.LANE, PUTHIYARA, KASABA AMSOM DESOM,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673004.
2 CHENGOT MUHAMMED BASHEER, AGED 53 YEARS,
S/O.LATE ALAVI HAJI, RESIDING AT CHENGOT HOUSE,
M.C.LANE, PUTHIYARA, KASABA AMSOM DESOM,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673004.
3 KOLUPARAMBIL NISHAD, AGED 49 YEARS,
D/O.K.P.MUHAMMED KUNJI, RESIDING AT CHENGOT HOUSE,
M.C.LANE, PUTHIYARA, KASABA AMSOM DESOM,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673004.
2
RCRev.No.158 of 2025 2025:KER:64149
4 CHERAYAKKATTU SHARJILA, AGED 38 YEARS,
D/O. K.P.ABDURAHIMAN, RESIDING AT CHENGOT HOUSE,
M.C.LANE, PUTHIYARA, KASABA AMSOM DESOM,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673004.
BY ADVS.
SRI.R.SUDHISH
SMT.M.MANJU
THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.08.2025,
THE COURT ON 25.08.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
RCRev.No.158 of 2025 2025:KER:64149
ORDER
Harisankar V. Menon, J.
This revision petition, at the instance of the tenant, seeks
to challenge the judgment dated 03.06.2025 in R.C.A.No.15 of
2024 of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, against the order of
the Rent Control Court in R.C.P.No.82 of 2016 dated 09.11.2023.
2. The respondents-landlords preferred the Rent
Control Petition under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings
(Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, pointing out that petitioners
3 and 4 intend to start a steel and cement wholesale cum retail
business in the schedule property along with the surrounding
structures. The Rent Control Court has examined the contentions
raised and found that the need projected as above is a bona fide
one. The question as regards the application of the first proviso
to Section 11(3) of the Act was also discussed, categorically
finding that the tenant has not discharged his burden. Findings
were rendered against the tenant with respect to the application
of the second proviso also. The Appellate Authority confirmed the
RCRev.No.158 of 2025 2025:KER:64149
afore findings and hence, the captioned revision petition.
3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner-tenant has
assailed the afore findings. We notice that the challenge is
essentially on account of:
i. The landlords being rich and affluent, the need pro-
jected was not bona fide.
ii. The petition schedule property is not suitable to carry
on business on account of the width of the access road.
iii. Since the property lies adjacent to the railway line, no
permission could be obtained for starting a business. It
is further contended that no plan for alteration/modifi-
cation is produced by the landlords.
iv. The findings as to the applicability of the second proviso
to Section 11(3) of the Act are also assailed.
4. In this connection, we notice that the landlords had filed
R.C.P.Nos.77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 83, and 84 of 2016 for evicting the
tenants of the rooms situated in the building in the property in
question. Eviction was ordered in R.C.P.Nos.79 and 80 of 2016 on
the ground of bona fide need, brushing aside the very same
RCRev.No.158 of 2025 2025:KER:64149
contentions raised by the tenants therein. Since the appeal
against the order of eviction was unsuccessful, the tenants
therein had filed R.C.Rev.Nos.41 and 49 of 2023 before this
Court. By the judgment dated 21.06.2023, a Division Bench of
this Court had refused to accept the contentions raised, finding
as under:-
"9. Having considered the rival contentions with the available
records, we find that the orders of the courts below call for no
interference. Both the courts had extensively dealt with the
contentions of the tenants and came to a conclusion that the
need alleged by the landlords is bona fide and that the tenants
are not entitled to the protection of the second proviso to
Section 11(3). The major contentions raised by the tenants,
that affluent Muslim women may not start a business as
projected, that the location of the petition scheduled buildings
is such that no business could be carried on and that the
landlords are affluent, etc., were rejected by giving valid and
cogent reasons. The evidence adduced in the case, both oral
and documentary, were appreciated by the courts below in the
correct perspective. We affirm the findings of the appellate
court that confirmed the orders of eviction passed by the rent
control court. We find that the impugned orders are legal,
regular and proper, calling for no interference in a revision
filed under Section 20 of the Act. Accordingly, the revision
petitions are dismissed. We find that the impugned orders are
legal, regular and proper, calling for no interference in a
RCRev.No.158 of 2025 2025:KER:64149
revision filed under Section 20 of the Act. Accordingly, the
revision petitions are dismissed."
In the light of the afore, we are of the opinion that the
appellant/tenant is not entitled for any relief in this revision
petition, when the bona fide need projected as above has been
accepted by the Rent Control Court as well as the Appellate
Authority, and the same has been upheld by this Court. No
different treatment can be extended in the case at hand. As
regards the contentions with reference to the findings in
paragraph 14 of the appellate order, we notice that the revision
petitioner has not taken any steps to get protection of the second
proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act.
5. On the whole, we are of the opinion that the revision
petitioner/tenant is not entitled to any relief. Consequently, the
captioned revision petition would stand dismissed.
At this juncture, the learned counsel for the revision
petitioner prays for some time to vacate the scheduled premises.
Noticing the said submission, we grant six months' time to the
revision petitioner to vacate the premises on the following
conditions:
RCRev.No.158 of 2025 2025:KER:64149
i) The tenant is granted six months' time from today to
vacate the building.
ii) The tenant shall clear the arrears of rent, if any,
within a period of four weeks from today.
iii) The tenant shall continue to pay the rent till the
actual surrender of the building.
iv) The tenant shall file an undertaking before the Rent
Control Court or the Execution Court, as the case
may be, within four weeks from today, stating that
he will vacate the building within six months from
today.
Sd/-
A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
JUDGE
Sd/-
HARISANKAR V. MENON
JUDGE
ln
RCRev.No.158 of 2025 2025:KER:64149
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:
ANNEXURE A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT FILED
BEFORE THE RENT CONTROL COURT/ ADDL. MUNSIFF -
I KOZHIKODE.
ANNEXURE A2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION TO THE COMMISSION
REPORT BEFORE THE RENT CONTROL COURT/ ADDL.
MUNSIFF -I KOZHIKODE.
ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM FILED BEFORE
THE RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY / ADDL.
DISTRICT JUDGE, KOZHIKODE.
