Kerala High Court
John Panackal vs Sasikala on 17 July, 2025
Author: A.Muhamed Mustaque
Bench: A.Muhamed Mustaque
R.C. Rev. No. 69/2025 :1:
2025:KER:53029
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JOHNSON JOHN
THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 26TH ASHADHA, 1947
RCREV. NO. 69 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 04.03.2024 IN RCA NO.6 OF 2021 OF RENT
CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY-II, PATHANAMTHITTA ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER
DATED 06.09.2021 IN RCP NO.3 OF 2018 OF RENT CONTROL COURT, ADOOR
REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
JOHN PANACKAL, AGED 73 YEARS,
PANACKAL VEEDU KUDASANADU MURI, PALAMEL VILLAGE,
MAVELIKKARA TALUK, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT FLAT NO. 703,
BUILDING NO. 419, ROAD 336, BLOCK NO. 311LULU AVENUE,
SALAMANIYA, MANAMA ROAD AND KINGDOM OF BAHARIN,
REPRESTENDED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER VIJAYAN PILLAI,
S/O. RAMAKURUP, THUSHARA, KUDASSANADU MURI, PALAMEL VILLAGE
MAVELIKKARA KERALA, PIN - 690 101.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.BINNY.A.THOMAS
SHRI.SHIBU JOSEPH
RESPONDENT/S:
SASIKALA, AGED 45 YEARS, D/O RAMAKRISHAN, RESIDING AT
ADICKADU VEEDU, CHERUKUNNAM MURIYIL, PALLICKAL VILLAGE,
ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 691 523.
BY ADVS.
SRI.MANU RAMACHANDRAN
SRI.M.KIRANLAL
SRI.T.S.SARATH
SRI.R.RAJESH (VARKALA)
SHRI.SAMEER M NAIR
SRI.A.C.EAPEN
SMT.SAILAKSHMI MENON
SHRI.HAFEEZ MUHAMMED
SHRI.RAVISANKAR C.R.
THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
17.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
R.C. Rev. No. 69/2025 :2:
2025:KER:53029
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE & JOHNSON JOHN, JJ.
---------------------------------------------------------
R.C. Rev. No. 69 of 2025
---------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of July, 2025
ORDER
Johnson John, J.
The revision petitioner is the landlord. The landlord sought eviction
under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and
Rent Control) Act, 1965 ('the Act' for short) and the Rent Control Court
rejected the prayer for eviction under Section 11(2)(b) and allowed
eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act. The appellate authority set aside
the order of eviction under Section 11(3) by allowing the appeal filed by
the tenant and the same is now under challenge.
2. According to the landlord, he is a qualified psychologist working
abroad and he requires vacant possession of the petition schedule room
for starting a counselling centre. The Rent Control Appellate Authority
found that the Rent Control Court relied on the evidence of the power of
attorney holder to record a finding regarding the bona fide need and the
same is not legally sustainable. It is true that bona fide need is a state of
mind and therefore, examination of the person claiming the same as a
witness is necessary.
3. The learned counsel for the landlord argued that sufficient
2025:KER:53029
opportunity was not granted by the trial court for examining the landlord
and therefore, considering the facts and circumstances, we find that the
matter can be remanded to the Rent Control Court for adducing
additional evidence regarding the bona fide need.
4. In the result, the order of the Rent Control Court and the
appellate authority under Section 11(3) of the Act is set aside and the
matter is remanded to the Rent Control Court for a fresh decision on the
question of bona fide need after permitting the parties to adduce
additional evidence in this regard.
Parties are directed to appear before the Rent Control Court on
04.08.2025 and the Rent Control Court is directed to dispose of the
matter within two months from the date of appearance of the parties.
sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE,
JUDGE.
sd/-
JOHNSON JOHN,
JUDGE.
Rv
