Kerala High Court
Muhammed Musthafa vs Ahammed Kabeer on 22 October, 2025
Author: A. Muhamed Mustaque
Bench: A.Muhamed Mustaque
2025:KER:78500
R.C.Rev. Nos.203/2025 & 204/2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON
WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 30TH ASWINA, 1947
RCREV. NO. 203 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.07.2025 IN RCA NO.25 OF
2023 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT/RENT CONTROL
APPELLATE AUTHORITY, MANJERI ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER DATED
31.10.2023 IN RCP NO.36 OF 2022 OF MUNSIFF COURT/RENT
CONTROL COURT, MANJERI
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:
UMMER, AGED 68 YEARS, S/O.KOYAKUTTY, THROLA
HOUSE, ANSAR OPTICALS, PONNANI MUNICIPALITY,
XIV/540, (OPPO. INDIAN BACKERY), C.V. JUNCTION,
P.O., PONNANI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676 577
BY ADVS.
SRI.BABU S. NAIR
SMT.SMITHA BABU
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:
1 AHAMMED KABEER, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL KADAR,
PUTHUVEETTIL, PONNANI NAGARAM AMSOM, P.O.,
PONNANI, PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN
2025:KER:78500
R.C.Rev. Nos.203/2025 & 204/2025
2
- 676 577
2 MUMTHAS, AGED 52 YEARS, D/O.ABDUL KADAR,
PUTHUVEETTIL, PONNANI NAGARAM AMSOM, P.O.,
PONNANI, PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN
- 676 577
3 SHAJI, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O. ABDUL KADAR,
PUTHUVEETTIL, PONNANI NAGARAM AMSOM, P.O.,
PONNANI, PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN
- 676 577
BY ADVS.
SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH
SHRI.SHERRY M.V.
THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 22.10.2025, ALONG WITH RCRev..204/2025, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:78500
R.C.Rev. Nos.203/2025 & 204/2025
3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON
WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 30TH ASWINA, 1947
RCREV. NO. 204 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.07.2025 IN RCA NO.23 OF
2023 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, TIRUR ARISING OUT OF THE
ORDER DATED 31.10.2023 IN RCP NO.40 OF 2022 OF MUNSIFF
MAGISTRATE COURT/RENT CONTROL COURT, PONNANI
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:
MUHAMMED MUSTHAFA, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED
MAMU, PADINJARE PATTAYIL HOUSE, SANA DUTY PAID
AND FANCY, PONNANI MUNICIPALITY, XIV/539, (OPPO.
INDIAN BACKERY), C.V. JUNCTION, P.O. PONNANI,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676 577
BY ADVS.
SRI.BABU S. NAIR
SMT.SMITHA BABU
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:
1 AHAMMED KABEER, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL KADAR,
PUTHUVEETTIL, PONNANI NAGARAM AMSOM, P.O.,
PONNANI, PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN
2025:KER:78500
R.C.Rev. Nos.203/2025 & 204/2025
4
- 676 577
2 MUMTHAS, AGED 52 YEARS, D/O.ABDUL KADAR,
PUTHUVEETTIL, PONNANI NAGARAM AMSOM, P.O.,
PONNANI, PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN
- 676 577
3 SHAJI, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O. ABDUL KADAR,
PUTHUVEETTIL, PONNANI NAGARAM AMSOM, P.O.,
PONNANI, PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN
- 676 577
BY ADVS.
SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH
SHRI.SHERRY M.V.
THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 22.10.2025, ALONG WITH RCRev..203/2025, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:78500
R.C.Rev. Nos.203/2025 & 204/2025
5
O RDER
[RCRev. Nos.203/2025, 204/2025]
A. Muhamed Mustaque, J.
These revision petitions are filed at the instance of the
tenants. They are occupying two different rooms, which are part
of a building that consists of twenty rooms. The landlords
sought eviction under Sections 11(3) and 11(4)(iv) of the Kerala
Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short "Act").
The Rent Controller rejected the claim for eviction under Section
11(4)(iv) of the Act, but allowed the claim under Section 11(3)
of the Act. The tenants appealed against the order of eviction
under Section 11(3) of the Act. The appeals were dismissed.
Challenging these orders, the tenants have come up with these
revision petitions.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the tenants and
the learned counsel for the landlords.
3. The projected need is to start a furniture
business by the landlords' brother-in-law. It is submitted before
2025:KER:78500
R.C.Rev. Nos.203/2025 & 204/2025
the Court that nine rooms have already been vacated by tenants
through execution proceedings, and only these two rooms
remain to be vacated.
4. The learned counsel for the tenants vehemently
argued that there is no bona fides and there are many rooms in
the possession of the landlords for starting such a business if
they require the building genuinely for the occupation of first
respondent and his brother-in-law to start a furniture business.
5. We have perused the findings. Elaborate
reasons have been given by the Rent Controller as well as the
Rent Control Appellate Authority to allow eviction under Section
11(3) of the Act. The tenants also failed to prove that there are
other buildings in the occupation of the landlords to attract the
first proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act.
6. Anyway, there is no scope for us to invoke our
revisional remedy to upset the findings of facts. The Rent
Controller as well as the Rent Control Appellate Authority
decided the matter on a proper perspective. Accordingly, these
revision petitions stand dismissed. However, we grant six
months time to the tenants to vacate the building on the
2025:KER:78500
R.C.Rev. Nos.203/2025 & 204/2025
following terms and conditions:
(i) An undertaking shall be filed before the Rent
Control Court, within four weeks from today, that the
petitioners/tenants will vacate the building within the time
granted.
(ii) The entire arrears, if any, shall be cleared
within four weeks and continue to pay the monthly rent up-to-
date till the actual surrender of the building.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
JUDGE
Sd/-
HARISANKAR V. MENON
JUDGE
PR
