Kerala High Court

Vidhya Easwer vs C.T.Sahadevan on 28 May, 2025

Author: A.Muhamed Mustaque

Bench: A.Muhamed Mustaque

RCR Nos.325, 326, 327 of 2018 & 118 of 2019

                                      1

                                                          2025:KER:36804



              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                  PRESENT

           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

                                      &

              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JOHNSON JOHN

  WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MAY 2025 / 7TH JYAISHTA, 1947

                         RCREV. NO. 325 OF 2018



       AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.11.2017 IN RCA NO.239

OF 2016 OF II ADDL.DISTRICT COURT/ II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT

COURT KOZHIKODE ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER DATED 30.07.2016

IN   RCP    NO.43   OF   2015   OF   RENT     CONTROL   COURT/ADDITIONAL

MUNSIFF COURT - I ,KOZHIKODE.

REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:

             MRS.VIDHYA EASWER, AGED 41 YEARS,
             W/O.S.EASWER, 19/1517-B, 'SWAJITHAM',
             KASABA AMSOM, DESOM, KOZHIKODE 673 002.
             (WRONGLY SHOWN IN THE CAUSE TITLE OF RCA AND RCP
             AS VIDYA EASWER, 19/1517 B,'SWAGITHAM',
             KASABA AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODDE - 673 001)

             BY ADVS.
             SRINATH GIRISH
             V.NAMITHA
 RCR Nos.325, 326, 327 of 2018 & 118 of 2019

                                      2

                                               2025:KER:36804


RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:



            U.L.SAYED AHAMAD, AGED 56 YEARS,
            S/O.AHAMAD, 72-DEEVU STREET, KAYALPATTANAM,
            THRICHANNUR TALUK, THOTHUKUDI DISTRICT,
            TAMIL NADU 628 202,
            NOW DOING BUSINESS AT 13/216,
            KAMMATH LANE, NAGARAM AMSOM,
            KOZHIKODE 673 001.


            BY ADV SRI.M.MUHAMMED SHAFI



      THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 28.05.2025, ALONG WITH RCRev..118/2019, 326/2018 AND
CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 RCR Nos.325, 326, 327 of 2018 & 118 of 2019

                                      3

                                                      2025:KER:36804


            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                  PRESENT

         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

                                      &

             THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JOHNSON JOHN

  WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MAY 2025 / 7TH JYAISHTA, 1947

                        RCREV. NO. 118 OF 2019



       AGAINST THE       JUDGMENT DATED 21.11.2017 IN RCA NO.218

OF   2016   OF   RENT    CONTROL    APPELLATE   AUTHORITY/ADDITIONAL

DISTRICT COURT - IV, KOZHIKODE, ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER

DATED 30.06.2016 IN RCP NO.48 OF 2015 OF RENT CONTROL

COURT/ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT ,KOZHIKODE-I.




REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:

            VIDHYAEASWER, AGED 42 YEARS,
            W/O.S.EASWER, 19/1517-B, 'SWAJITHAM', KASABA
            AMSOM, DESOM, KOZHIKODE-673002.
            (WRONGTLY SHOWN IN THE CAUSE TITLE OF RCA AND RCP
            AS) VIDYA EASWER 19/1517-B, SWAGITHAM,
            KASABA AMSOM, DESOM, KOZHIKODE-673001.


            BY ADVS.
            SRINATH GIRISH
            V.NAMITHA
 RCR Nos.325, 326, 327 of 2018 & 118 of 2019

                                      4

                                               2025:KER:36804


RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT :

            K.RASHEEJ, AGED 40 YEARS,
            S/O.K.RAJAN, 29/980,
            NADUVILAKANDY PARAMBA, RASHIJ NIVAS,
            KOTOOLI, KOZHIKODE-673 016.



      THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 28.05.2025, ALONG WITH RCRev..325/2018 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 RCR Nos.325, 326, 327 of 2018 & 118 of 2019

                                      5

                                                          2025:KER:36804

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                  PRESENT

           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

                                      &

              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JOHNSON JOHN

  WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MAY 2025 / 7TH JYAISHTA, 1947

                         RCREV. NO. 326 OF 2018

       AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 22-11-2017 IN RCA NO.238
OF 2016 OF RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY/ II ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT COURT, ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER DATED30-07-2016
IN   RCP    NO.42   OF   2015   OF   RENT     CONTROL   COURT/ADDITIONAL
MUNSIFF COURT I ,KOZHIKODE.

REVISION PETITIONER/ RESPONDENT/PETITIONER :

             MRS.VIDHYA EASWER, AGED 41 YEARS,
             W/O S.EASWER,19/1517-B,,SWAJITHAM,
             KASABA AMSOM, DESOM,KOZHIKKODE-673 002.
             (WRONGLY SHOWN IN THE CAUSE TITLE OF RCA AND RCP
             AS VIDYA EASWER, 19/1517 B,'SWAGITHAM',
             KASABA AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODDE - 673 001)

             BY ADVS. SRINATH GIRISH & V.NAMITHA


RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:

             P.M.ABDUL LATHIF, AGED 51 YEARS,
             S/O P.M.ABDULLA,KALATHILKUNNU AMSAM DESOM,
             NALUKUDY PARAMBA, KOZHIKODE.


      THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 28.05.2025, ALONG WITH RCRev..325/2018 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 RCR Nos.325, 326, 327 of 2018 & 118 of 2019

                                      6

                                                      2025:KER:36804


        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                            PRESENT

         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

                                      &

             THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JOHNSON JOHN

  WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MAY 2025 / 7TH JYAISHTA, 1947

                        RCREV. NO. 327 OF 2018

       AGAINST THE       JUDGMENT DATED 27-01-2018 IN RCA NO.280
OF   2016   OF   RENT    CONTROL    APPELLATE   AUTHORITY/ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT COURT IV, KOZHIKODE, ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER
DATED 31-08-2016 IN RCP NO.83 OF 2015 OF RENT CONTROL
COURT/PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT I, KOZHIKODE.

REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:

            VIDHYA EASWER, AGED 41 YEARS,
            W/O S. EASWER, 19/1517-B, 'SWAJITHAM0',
            KASABA AMSAM, DESAM, KOZHIKODE-673 002.
            (WRONGLY SHOWN IN THE CAUSE TITLE OF RCA AND RCP
            AS VIDYA EASWER, 19/1517 B,'SWAGITHAM',
            KASABA AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODDE - 673 001)

            BY ADVS.SRINATH GIRISH & V.NAMITHA


RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:

            C.T.SAHADEVAN, AGED 60 YEARS,
            S/O T.C. APPU, CHERUMANNIL,
            THANTHANKANDY HOUSE, PUTHIYANGADI P.O,
            KARANTHOOR AMSOM, DESOM, KOZHIKODE-673 021

            BY ADV SRI.M.MUHAMMED SHAFI

     THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 28.05.2025, ALONG WITH RCRev..325/2018 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 RCR Nos.325, 326, 327 of 2018 & 118 of 2019

                                      7

                                                         2025:KER:36804




       A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE & JOHNSON JOHN, JJ.
          -----------------------------------------------
       RCR Nos.325, 326, 327 of 2018 & 118 of 2019
          -----------------------------------------------
            Dated this the 28th day of May, 2025.


                            JUDGMENT

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

These four revision petitions are related to different

tenanted premises leased out to tenants. The landlady owns a

row of buildings and these tenanted premises form part of the

same building. She projected the need for occupation of her

husband, who is employed in a private company in Mumbai. It is

specifically pleaded by the landlady that she requires her

building for starting a jewellery business for her husband after

his retirement from the service. The tenants resisted the claim

under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent

Control) Act, 1965 ('the Act' in short) for eviction on the

grounds of bona fide need. The Rent Controller, upon

appreciation of the evidence by the revision petitioner as well as RCR Nos.325, 326, 327 of 2018 & 118 of 2019

2025:KER:36804

the tenant, found that there was no mala fides in the landlady's

claim and accordingly, ordered eviction.

2. The Rent Control Court also specifically adverted a

question under the first proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act,

which would disentitle a claim for eviction under Section 11(3)

of the Act, that is, if the landlady is found to be in possession of

other suitable rooms vacant in the building then why she has

not stated any reasons for non-occupation of the same. That

question was answered in favour of the landlady based on the

explanation given by her. She stated that the building is under

an oral lease to a person, who has agreed to vacate the

premises whenever she demands possession of both the

building and the tenanted premises. That explanation was found

plausible, and no mala fides were found by the Rent Control

Court. However, on appeals, preferred by the tenants, the

appellate authority found two reasons weighing against the

landlady; (i) there was no specific pleading regarding the date

of retirement of the landlady's husband from Mumbai and (ii)

the explanation given by the landlady for not occupying the

vacant building under her ownership was not satisfactory. RCR Nos.325, 326, 327 of 2018 & 118 of 2019

2025:KER:36804

3. We find that the perspective of enquiry required

under Section 11(3) of the Act is objective and it does not

involve dissecting factual matters to enter into a subjective

satisfaction for denying eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act.

Objectively, it has to be assessed from the perspective of

whether the landlady/landlord demonstrated any mala fides.

The landlady's husband is employed in a private company in

Mumbai. If he wishes to return after his retirement or

termination of service and occupy the building, it cannot be said

that the need projected lacks bona fides. The differentiation

between bona fides and mala fides essentially lies in the state of

mind of the landlord or landlady. The landlady is alleged to have

malafide intention merely for the reason that she has not

mentioned the date of retirement of her husband. However, this

will not reflect any malafides of the need projected. In the

absence of any such ulterior motives attributed against the

landlady, the Appellate Court wrongly premised her need based

on misdirected factors. In regard to the question under the

first proviso of Section 11(3) of the Act, the Rent Control Court

rightly found her explanation acceptable. It is to be noted that RCR Nos.325, 326, 327 of 2018 & 118 of 2019

2025:KER:36804

there are four rooms now. The landlady cannot occupy the one

vacant room unless she obtains vacant possession of the other

rooms as well, for starting a jewellery business. She has

explained that the tenant in possession of those room has

agreed to surrender them. The landlady cannot keep those

rooms vacant without generating any revenue until she gets the

vacant possession of the tenanted rooms. She made temporary

arrangements till the vacant possession of the tenanted

premises is obtained through the process of law. These matters

have been pending for ten years now. This will show that, what

prompted the landlady to let out that vacant rooms was for the

reason that the rooms should not remain idle without

generating any income and it would be a sheer waste of money

as far as she is concerned. In such circumstances, we are of

the view that the revision petitioner is entitled to succeed.

Accordingly, we set aside all impugned orders of the appellate

authority. We allow these revision petitions and grant three

months' time from today to the tenants to vacate the building

on the following terms and conditions :

1) The respondents/tenants shall undertake that they will RCR Nos.325, 326, 327 of 2018 & 118 of 2019

2025:KER:36804

vacate the building within three months from today. They

shall file an undertaking within four weeks from today.