Kerala High Court
K.K. Rajan vs K.H. Sudevan on 7 February, 2025
Author: A.Muhamed Mustaque
Bench: A.Muhamed Mustaque
RCRev.No.34/2025
1
2025:KER:10145
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 18TH MAGHA, 1946
RCREV. NO. 34 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 5/11/2024 IN RCA NO.17 OF 2023
OF THE COURT OF ADDL.RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY-V,
PALAKKAD ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER DATED 19/07/2023 IN RCP NO.27
OF 2019 OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT, PALAKKAD
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:
K.K. RAJAN
DOOR NO. 11/168, NEW NO. 41/251, KANDATH COMPLEX,
SUDEVAN ROAD, PALAKKAD., PIN - 678001
BY ADVS.
P.R.VENKATESH
ASHA P.KURIAKOSE
REJITHA RAJAN
LAKSHMI MEENAKSHI P.R.
RINCY R.
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:
1 K.H. SUDEVAN
S/O. LATE HARIDAS, RESIDING AT EDAKKATTUPARAMBU,
PALLANCHATHANUR, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678571
2 K.H. HARIKRISHNAN
S/O. LATE HARIDAS, RESIDING AT 'VISHWATHA',
RAMANATHAPURAM, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001
THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
RCRev.No.34/2025
2
2025:KER:10145
ORDER
P.Krishna Kumar, J.
The tenant who suffered an order of eviction
under Sections 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(4)(i) of the
Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965
('the Act', for short) challenges the concurrent
findings of the Rent Control Court and the Rent Control
Appellate Authority, by invoking the revisional
jurisdiction of this court.
2. The short facts which are necessary for the
disposal of this case are as follows:
The respondents stated that their father
Haridas and his brothers leased out the petition
scheduled building to the petitioner herein and later
the said building devolved upon the respondents. They
further contended that the second respondent has no job
or avocation and he is depending on the first
respondent and his mother for his livelihood and he
bona fide requires the petition scheduled shop room for
2025:KER:10145
starting a restaurant business. The petitioner objected
the eviction petition by contending that the need
projected by respondents is without any bonafides. It
is also contended that the tenant is wholly depending
on the income derived from the business for his
livelihood and there are no suitable vacant buildings
to shift his business.
3. During the trial, the respondents
examined PWs 1 and 2 and proved Exts.A1 to A3 in his
evidence. The petitioner examined himself as RW1 and
got marked Exts.B1 to B23 in evidence.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner as well as the respondents.
5. Though the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner further assailed the eviction order passed
under Sections 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(4)(i) of the Act
by raising certain factual challenges, we find no
reason to re-evaluate the correctness of those findings
of facts. In Ubaiba v. Damodaran [(1999) 5 SCC 645] the
Honourable Apex Court held that the power of revision
2025:KER:10145
under Section 20 of the Act should not be exercised to
reappreciate the evidence and to substitute an
independent conclusion in place of the findings arrived
at by the Rent Control Court/Appellate Authority. In
the absence of any material to show that there is
perversity or gross irregularity in the findings of the
Courts of the first and second instances, this court is
not expected to reconsider the correctness of the
concurrent factual findings as to the bona fide need
projected by the landlords. The petitioner herein
failed to point out any such exceptional circumstances.
6. Therefore, this Rent Control Revision
Petition is dismissed. However, considering the fervent
plea made by the learned counsel for the petitioner,
six months' time is granted to the petitioner to
surrender vacant possession of the petition schedule
shop room to the respondent, subject to the following
conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall file an affidavit
before the Rent Control Court or the
2025:KER:10145
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 shop room to the
respondents-landlords within six months
from the date of this order and that, he
shall not induct third parties into
possession of the petition schedule shop
room, and further, he shall conduct any
business in the petition schedule shop
room only on the strength of a valid
licence/permission/consent issued by the
local authority/statutory authorities;
(ii) The petitioner 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 one month from the date of receipt
2025:KER:10145
of a certified copy of this order, and
shall continue to pay rent for every
succeeding month, without any default;
(iii) Needless to say, 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 shop room will stand
cancelled automatically, and the landlord
will be at liberty to proceed with the
execution of the order of eviction.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
JUDGE
Sd/-
P. KRISHNA KUMAR
JUDGE
sv
