The landlord is the petitioner. She challenges
2. Apart from making a claim under Section 11(3),
the fair rent. Though the Rent Control Court did not
petitioner. There is no challenge against the said
3. The case of the petitioner which is essential
building having 1200 Sq.feet. was let out to the
years for a monthly rent @ Rs.7,672/-. It is further
and bakery business on her behalf. It is also stated
4. The respondent resisted the petition, inter
2025:KER:20604
building. It is also contended that there are 2188
numbers of BSNL landline telephone connections and
1080 broadband connections working in the telecom
respondent will outweigh the advantage of the
5. The Rent Control Court rejected the claim of
for her own occupation (through her son) for the
"12. ......... So, the above petition filed
contending the bona-fide need of the petitioner's
children. The petition was filed on 12.12.18. So,
the bona-fide need of the petitioner's children
would start at least from the date of filing of the
petition. But PW1, during her cross examination
stated that she has tenanted another shop room in
the year 2009 to PW4. PW4 who is another tenant of
the petitioner who testified that he has occupied
the shop room in August, 2019. This would go to show
that even after bona-fide need of PW1 starts or in
other words, even after filing the above petition
2025:KER:20604
contending the bona fide need of petitioner's
children, the petitioner has tenanted the vacant
shop room when the bona fide need of her children is
being in existence. There is not even a pleading in
the petition that she has tenanted the premises let
to out PW4 in the year 2019. She has let out after
her bona-fide need started. The petitioner should
have pleaded that she has been in possession of a
vacant room in the year 2019. She should have also
pleaded the special reasons for not occupying the
said room tenanted to PW4. All these facts have been
suppressed in the petition. This would cut the root
of the very case of the petitioner regarding her
bona-fide need. No special reasons and non-
occupation of the shop room which tenanted to PW4
were not even pleaded in the petition. It is also
admitted that the extent of the shop room tenanted
out to the PW4 in the year 2019 is 1100 Sq. feet. By
considering the evidence of PW4 itself reveals that
the petitioner was in possession of a vacant
premises which has been tenanted to PW4. The
petitioner neither pleaded nor proved with regard to
the particular shop room leased to PW4 and the
special reasons for not occupying the said room.
Therefore, the petitioner failed to substantiate the
bona fide need as averred in the petition. The
petitioner is not entitled for eviction under
S.11(3) of the Act since the petitioner has no bona-
fide need as alleged in the petition."
2025:KER:20604
The above finding was upheld by the Rent Control
Appellate Authority as well. The Appellate Authority
also found that after sending Exts.A2 and A3 legal
notices on 3.7.2018 and 14.8.2018 respectively, the
petitioner has rented out two buildings together
having a total area of 1100 sq. ft. to PW4 on 7.2.2019
and thus at the time of demanding the respondent to
vacate the building, the petitioner was holding two
vacant shop rooms adjacent to the scheduled building
and that the petitioner suppressed the said fact. The
Appellate Authority further observed that the
respondent being one of the essential service
providers, shifting its business from the scheduled
building would be a time-consuming affair and it would
cause indescribable hardship to the respondent and
that the same outweighed the hardship of the landlord.
6. On considering the entire records before us, we
are not in a position to uphold the said concurrent
2025:KER:20604
findings as they do not align within the settled law.
The Rent Control Petition was filed by the petitioner
on 12.12.2018. PW4 deposed before the court that he
took possession of two buildings from the petitioner,
one in February 2019 and the other in August 2019 and
the two buildings together would extend to roughly
1000-1100 Sq.feet. The same aspect was put to PW1, the
son of the petitioner, also during cross-examination.
He stated that the adjacent building which was leased
out to another tenant has an extent of 600 Sq.feet.
and it was done on 7.2.2019. This Court in Valsan v.
Furtal (2004(3) KLT 1046), after following the
decision of the Apex Court in G.C.Kapoor v. Nand Kumar
Bhasin and Others [(2002) 1 SCC 610], held that the
mere fact that a landlord has come into possession of
premises while the rent control proceeding is pending
does not mean that he should occupy that premises
rather than proceeding with the rent control
proceeding initiated against another tenant.
2025:KER:20604
7. That apart, what is in evidence before the
court is that the petitioner had rented out two rooms
to PW4 during February 2019 and August 2019 and these
two rooms together would extend to 1000 - 1100
Sq.feet, whereas the bonafide need put forward by the
petitioner is that they require the petition scheduled
shop room which is having 1200 Sq.feet. It is also in
evidence that the shop rooms let out to PW4 consist of
one room having 600-700 Sq.feet and a shed having 300-
400 Sq.feet. Therefore, it is not possible to compare
these two buildings. The landlord, being the best
Judge of his/her needs, has to decide which among them
is suitable for the proposed business. It is relevant
to note that in the counter statement filed by the
respondent, there is no whisper as to the above-said
aspects. Those matters were introduced for the first
time when PW1 was cross-examined. Unfortunately, the
Rent Control Court reached to an erroneous conclusion
that the petitioner suppressed the fact that a vacant
2025:KER:20604
building was available with her at the time when she
filed the petition for eviction and she did not plead
or prove any special reason for not occupying the said
building. In fact, there is no evidence before the
court that as on the date of filing the petition the
said building was in the vacant possession of the
petitioner.
8. Further, the Appellate Authority erred in
holding that "while considering the relative hardship
that is to be caused to the tenant and the landlord,
more weightage is to be given to the hardship caused
to the tenant than the advantage of the landlord."
Going by the language of the first proviso to Section
11(10) of the Act, such a comparison is required only
in a case where Section 11(8) is invoked.
9. The learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner submitted that BSNL, the respondent, is not
an organization notified by the Government under
Section 11(11)(i) of the Act. The learned counsel
2025:KER:20604
placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. M.Balakrishnan in
R.C.R.No.140/2017 dated 31/05/2017. This Court found
in the said decision that the BSNL cannot claim any
special protection and they should be placed in the
position as any other tenants, as they are not an
institution notified under the above provision.
10. The learned counsel appearing for the
respondent forcefully submitted that the revisional
court is not expected to unsettle the concurrent
factual findings by re-appreciating the evidence. We
are in agreement with the said proposition, but in the
present case, the concurrent findings of facts are
against the settled legal principles and are grossly
erroneous.
11. In view of the above discussion, we find that
the bonafide need projected by the petitioner is
genuine. The respondent being a public limited company
will not get the benefit of the second proviso to
2025:KER:20604
Section 11(3). Hence, there is no reason to deny the
order of eviction sought by the petitioner under
Section 11(3). However, considering the fact that the
respondent has to dismantle costly electronic
equipments and telecom cables etc. while vacating the
building, we deem it appropriate to give them
sufficient time to vacate the premises.
12. In the result, the revision petition is
allowed. The petitioner is entitled to get vacant
possession of the scheduled rooms as per Section 11(3)
of the Act. However, the respondent is given one year
time from today to vacate the premises, but on the
following conditions:
(i) The respondents 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
2025:KER:20604
undertaking that they will surrender
vacant possession of the petition
scheduled building to the petitioner-
landlord within one year from the date of
this order and that, they shall not
induct third parties into possession of
the petition scheduled building.
(ii) The respondents shall deposit the
entire arrears of rent (at the rate of
the rent as fixed by the Rent Control
Appellate Authority) 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
of a certified copy of this order, and
shall continue to pay such rent for every
succeeding month, without any default;
(iii) Needless to say, failing to comply
2025:KER:20604
with any one of the conditions stated
above, the time limit granted by this
order to surrender vacant possession of
the petition scheduled building 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
