Kerala High Court
Aneesh vs A. Noor Muhammed on 8 July, 2025
Author: A.Muhamed Mustaque
Bench: A.Muhamed Mustaque
R.C. Rev. No. 17 & 21 of 2025 :1:
2025:KER:50004
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JOHNSON JOHN
TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 17TH ASHADHA, 1947
RCREV. NO. 17 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 26.07.2024 IN RCA NO.5 OF 2024 OF RENT
CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY/DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD ARISING OUT OF THE
ORDER DATED 22.12.2023 IN RCP NO.2 OF 2022 OF RENT CONTROL COURT,
PALAKKAD
REVISION PETITIONER:
ASHIK, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O UMMER, PROPRIETOR, PRINCE WATCH, TB
ROAD, PALAKKAD POST, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678 001.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.SARATH M.S.
SRI.B.PREMNATH (E)
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:
1 A. NOOR MUHAMMED, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O LATE N. ABDUL MUTHALIF,
'MANR HOUSE', M.A. LANE, NEAR T.B. ROAD, PALAKKAD POST,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678 001.
2 A. SADIQ AHAMMED, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O LATE N. ABDUL MUTHALIF,
'MANR HOUSE', M.A. LANE, NEAR T.B. ROAD, PALAKKAD POST,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678 001.
BY ADVS.
SRI.BIJO FRANCIS
SHRI.T.R.ANIL VENUGOPAL
SRI.JOSE KURIAKOSE (VILANGATTIL)
SRI.LUIZ GODWIN D COUTH
THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
08.07.2025, ALONG WITH R.C Rev. No.21 of 2025,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
R.C. Rev. No. 17 & 21 of 2025 :2:
2025:KER:50004
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JOHNSON JOHN
TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 17TH ASHADHA, 1947
RCREV. NO. 21 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 26.07.2024 IN RCA NO.6 OF 2024 OF RENT
CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY/DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD ARISING OUT OF THE
ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 22.12.2023 IN RCP NO.3 OF 2022 OF RENT CONTROL
COURT, PALAKKAD
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:
ANEESH, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O NARAYANAN, PROPRIETOR OF ANILA
JEWELLERY, TB ROAD, PALAKKAD POST, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN -
678 001.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.SARATH M.S.
SRI.B.PREMNATH (E)
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:
1 A. NOOR MUHAMMED, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O LATE N. ABDUL MUTHALIF,
'MANR HOUSE', M.A. LANE, NEAR T.B. ROAD, PALAKKAD POST,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678 001.
2 A. SADIQ AHAMMED, AGED 55 YEARS
S/O LATE N. ABDUL MUTHALIF, 'MANR HOUSE', M.A. LANE, NEAR T.B.
ROAD, PALAKKAD POST, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678 001.
BY ADVS.
SRI.BIJO FRANCIS
SHRI.T.R.ANIL VENUGOPAL
SRI.JOSE KURIAKOSE (VILANGATTIL)
THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
08.07.2025, ALONG WITH R.C Rev. No.17 of 2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
R.C. Rev. No. 17 & 21 of 2025 :3:
2025:KER:50004
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE & JOHNSON JOHN, JJ.
---------------------------------------------------------
R.C. Rev. Nos. 17 & 21 of 2025
---------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 8th day of July, 2025
ORDER
Johnson John, J.
The revision petitioners are the tenants and they are challenging
the concurrent orders of eviction under Section 11(3) of the Kerala
Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 ('the Act' for short) by the
Rent Control Court and the Rent Control Appellate Authority.
2. The landlords filed R.C.P. Nos. 2 and 3 of 2022 against the
respective tenants and in R.C.P. No. 3 of 2022, eviction was also sought
under Section 11(2)(b) of the Act. The order of eviction under Section
11(2)(b) of the Act in R.C.P. No. 3 of 2022 was set aside by the
appellate authority in RCA No. 6 of 2024 on the ground that the entire
arrears of rent as mentioned in the notice has been cleared. But, the
Rent Control Appellate Authority confirmed the order of eviction under
Section 11(3) of the Act as per the common judgment in RCA Nos. 5 and
6 of 2024.
2025:KER:50004
3. Heard both sides.
4. The bona fide need put forward is that the son of the landlord
needs vacant possession of both the rooms for conducting business of
mobile phones and accessories. The respective tenants contended that
the need alleged is not bona fide and that the same is only a ruse for
eviction. The respective tenants also claimed the benefit of the provisos
to Section 11(3) of the Act. The Rent Control Court and the appellate
authority found that the evidence of PW1 that his son intends to start a
business of mobile phones and accessories in his native place, is real and
genuine.
5. It is in evidence that the son of PW1 has completed B. Com
course and studied for one year in London and thereafter, went to Dubai.
It is the case of the landlord that his son was not able to start any
business in partnership at Dubai and he intends to start the proposed
business in the petition schedule rooms. The Rent Control Court and the
appellate authority also considered the contention of the respective
tenants that they are entitled for the benefit of the provisos to Section
2025:KER:50004
11(3) of the Act and found that the tenants have not succeeded in
proving that the landlord is in possession of any other building sufficient
for starting the proposed business.
6. The burden is on the tenants to prove both the ingredients of
the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. Even though, the
respective tenants were examined as RWs 1 and 2, it can be seen that
they have not adduced any satisfactory evidence regarding the income
derived from the business conducted in the petition schedule rooms. In
that circumstance, we also find no reason to disagree with the finding of
the Rent Control Court and the Rent Control Appellate Authority that the
tenants are not entitled for the benefit of the second proviso to Section
11(3) of the Act. There is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned
orders of the Rent Control Court and the Rent Control Appellate
authority warranting interference in revision.
7. In the result, the revision petitions are dismissed.
However, the revision petitioners/tenants are granted three
months' time from today to vacate the petition schedule rooms, on
condition that they shall file unconditional undertakings before the Rent
2025:KER:50004
Control Court, within four weeks from today, that they shall vacate the
petition schedule rooms within a period of three months and also shall
pay the arrears of rent, if any, within the aforesaid time limit and
continue to pay the monthly rent till they vacates the petition schedule
rooms.
sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE,
JUDGE.
sd/-
JOHNSON JOHN,
JUDGE.
Rv
