Kerala High Court
Narayani K.T vs A.Kannan on 14 March, 2025
Author: A.Muhamed Mustaque
Bench: A.Muhamed Mustaque
RCREV. NO. 86 OF 2023
-:1:-
2025:KER:22063
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 14TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 23RD PHALGUNA, 1946
RCREV. NO. 86 OF 2023
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.11.2022 IN RCA NO.13 OF 2021 OF
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC), KASARAGOD ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER DATED
11.08.2021 IN RCP NO.28 OF 2015 OF MUNSIFF COURT, HOSDRUG
REVISION PETITIONER/S:
1 NARAYANI K.T
AGED 83 YEARS
AGED 83 YEARS, WIFE OF LATE MOOLAKKAL KUNHIRAMAN, RESIDING
AT ORCHA, P.O. NILESHWAR, NILESHWAR VILLAGE, HOSDURG,
KASARGDE TALUK., PIN - 671314
2 LEELA K.T
AGED 59 YEARS
AGED 59 YEARS, DAUGHTER OF LATE MOOLAKKAL KUNHIRAMAN,
RESIDING AT KOMACHI HOUSE, KASARGOD POST, THURUTHI,
CHERUVATHUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGDE, PIN - 671313
3 GEETA K.T.
AGED 57 YEARS
AGED 57 YEARS, DAUGHTER OF LATE MOOLAKKAL KUNHIRAMAN,
RESIDING AT KOMACHI HOUSE, KASARGOD POST, THURUTHI,
CHERUVATHUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGDE, PIN - 671313
RCREV. NO. 86 OF 2023
-:2:-
2025:KER:22063
4 HARIDAS K.T
AGED 54 YEARS
AGED 54 YEARS, DAUGHTER OF LATE MOOLAKKAL KUNHIRAMAN,
RESIDING AT KOMACHI HOUSE, KASARGOD POST, THURUTHI,
CHERUVATHUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGDE, PIN - 671313
BY ADVS.
C.MURALIKRISHNAN (PAYYANUR)
ABRAHAM GEORGE JACOB
P.I.RAHEENA
RESPONDENT/S:
A.KANNAN
AGED 62 YEARS
AGED 62 YEARS, SON OF KUMBA AMMA KADANGOD, NELLIKKAL,
CHERUVATHUR VILLAGE, P.O. THURUTHI, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD
DISTRICT, PIN - 671314
BY ADVS.
Suresh P.G.
ASWATHY KRISHNAN(K/000603/2017)
THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RCREV. NO. 86 OF 2023
-:3:-
2025:KER:22063
ORDER
P. Krishna Kumar, J.
The tenants are the revision petitioners. The respondent herein
is the landlord. He filed the Rent Control Petition under Section 11(3)
of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965
(hereinafter referred to as the "Act") seeking vacant possession of
the tenanted premises on the ground that he requires it for his own
occupation viz. to shift his tailoring unit which is being
accommodated in his residential building.
2. Before the Rent Control Court, the revision
petitioners/tenants resisted the eviction petition on various counts.
They contested that their predecessor-in-interest, namely, Moolakkal
Kunhiraman obtained possession of the petition schedule shop rooms
from one Krishnan and Raghavan in the year 2002, as per a Katchit
dated 10/12/2002; and after his death, the tenancy right over the
petition schedule shop rooms have been devolved on the revision
petitioners. It was also alleged that the purchase of the petition
RCREV. NO. 86 OF 2023
2025:KER:22063
schedule shop rooms by the respondent herein was not intimated to
them and thus it was a sham transaction. It was also contended that
the need projected by the respondent-landlord was only a ruse for
eviction and that he is in possession of another room which is
sufficient enough for accommodating the proposed tailoring unit.
The tenants further alleged that they are solely depending upon the
income derived from the business carried on in the petition schedule
shop rooms for their livelihood and there are no other shop rooms
available in the locality for shifting their business.
3. Both the Rent Control Court and the Rent Control Appellate
authority concurrently found that the need put forward by the
respondent-landlord is bona fide and that the petitioners are not
entitled to get protection of the second proviso to Section 11(3) of
the Act.
4. Heard both sides. We have also carefully considered the
orders passed by both the authorities.
RCREV. NO. 86 OF 2023
2025:KER:22063
5. The main contention raised by the revision petitioners is
that the respondent-landlord has another building in his possession
to accommodate the proposed business. When a Commission was
taken out to assess the suitability of the additional room allegedly
occupied by the landlord, it was found that the landlord was using it
as a firewood storage space and also a garage and the said room is
thus not vacant. Based on the report of the Commissioner, both the
authorities found that it is not suitable for starting the proposed
business of the respondent in the said room.
In the light of the concurrent finding of facts by both the
authorities, we are also of the view that no interference is warranted
in those conclusions. Further, the tenants did not adduce materials
to prove that they are entitled to get the protection of the second
proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. Therefore, it is only to be
concluded that the impugned order is not liable to be interfered with.
However, taking a lenient view, we grant six months' time from today
to the tenants to vacate the building on the following terms and
conditions;
RCREV. NO. 86 OF 2023
2025:KER:22063
i) The revision petitioners/tenants shall undertake that they will
vacate the building within six months from today. They shall file such
an undertaking within four weeks from today.
ii) They shall pay the entire arrears of rent, if any, within two
months, and shall continue to pay the rent due till the date of
delivery.
Accordingly, the Rent Control Revision filed by the tenants is
dismissed, but with the above observations.
Sd/-
A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
JUDGE
Sd/-
P. KRISHNA KUMAR
JUDGE
ms
