Kerala High Court
Manoly Haneefa vs Puthiyapurayil Shuhaib on 18 September, 2025
Author: A.Muhamed Mustaque
Bench: A.Muhamed Mustaque
RCREV. NO. 84 OF 2025 1 2025:KER:69043
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON
THURSDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 27TH BHADRA, 1947
RCREV. NO. 84 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.11.2024 IN RCA NO.70 OF
2023 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT II/RENT CONTROL APPELLATE
AUTHORITY II, KOZHIKODE ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER DATED
15.02.2023 IN RCP NO.175 OF 2017 OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT
KOZHIKODE-I
REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 :
1 MANOLY HANEEFA
AGED 67 YEARS
S/O.K.K.KUTTY,
PUTHIYANGADI.P.O.,
PUTHIYANGADI AMSOM DESOM,
KOZHIKODE,
PIN - 673021
2 MELEKANDY RABIYA
AGED 60 YEARS
W/O.HANEEFA,
PUTHIYANGADI.P.O.,
PUTHIYANGADI AMSOM DESOM,
KOZHIKODE,
PIN - 673021
BY ADVS.
SRI.B.PREMNATH (E)
SHRI.SARATH M.S.
RCREV. NO. 84 OF 2025 2 2025:KER:69043
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS & 3RD RESPONDENT :
1 PUTHIYAPURAYIL SHUHAIB
AGED 59 YEARS
S/O.MAMMED KOYA,
RESIDING AT 'BARZA',
VALAPPIL NAGAR,
KUTHUKALLU.P.O.,
KOZHIKODE,
PIN - 673001
2 PANTHAKKALAKATH AYISHA
AGED 53 YEARS
W/O.SHUHAIB,
RESIDING AT 'BARZA',
VALAPPIL NAGAR,
KUTHUKALLU.P.O.,
KOZHIKODE,
PIN - 673001
3 MANALIL KHADER
AGED 54 YEARS
S/O.KUNJABDULLA,
RESIDING AT MANALIL HOUSE,
P.O.MUTTIL,
KALPETTA,
WAYANAD,
PIN-673122,
REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER,
C.V. RASHID,
AGED 39,
S/O ABOOBACKER HAJI,
RESIDING AT SHARMINAS,
AZHIYOOR AMSOM AND DESOM,
VADAKARA TALUK,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,
PIN - 673309
BY ADVS.
SHRI.V.V.SURENDRAN
SHRI.GOKUL DEVIS
RCREV. NO. 84 OF 2025 3 2025:KER:69043
SRI.P.A.HARISH
SMT.SHILPA K.
THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
15.09.2025, THE COURT ON 18.09.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RCREV. NO. 84 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:69043
ORDER
Dated this the 18th day of September, 2025
A.Muhamed Mustaque, J.
This revision was filed by the tenants. The Rent Control
Court and the Appellate Authority ordered eviction under Section
11(3) of the Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (in
short "the Act") on the ground of the bona fide need of one of the
landlords.
2. The tenanted premises originally belonged to one
Meenakshi. Thereafter, Meenakshi assigned the building to the
present landlords. The present landlords entered into a sale
agreement with Manalil Khader, who was subsequently
impleaded in the proceedings. The agreements appear to have
been executed in 2006, 2009, and 2012. The suit filed by Khader
for specific performance was dismissed by the Civil Court. One of
the grounds urged in the revision petition was that the landlords
initiated the rent control petition for eviction after Khader had
filed the suit. It is also the case of the tenants that the
assignment in favour of the present landlords has been
RCREV. NO. 84 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:69043
questioned by the legal heirs of Meenakshi. However, there is no
dispute to the fact that a landlord-tenant relationship exists and
that the present landlords are the owners of the building.
3. The landlords sought eviction for the bona fide need of
the first respondent, Shuhaib (one of the landlords), who intends
to start a supermarket. Both the Rent Control Court and the
Appellate Authority were satisfied with the bona fides of the need
projected by the landlord. It was also held that the tenant is not
entitled to protection under the second proviso to Section 11(3)
of the Act.
4. Adv.Sri.Premnath B, the learned counsel for the revision
petitioner, argued that the civil litigation between the parties in
regard to title and specific performance had been overlooked by
the authorities while assessing the bona fide needs in the proper
perspective. It is submitted that a landlord who attempted to sell
the property and thereafter initiates proceedings for eviction,
after the filing of a suit for specific performance, cannot be said
to have bona fides in claiming eviction under section 11(3) of the
Act.
5. We cannot hold that the attempt of the landlord to sell
RCREV. NO. 84 OF 2025 6 2025:KER:69043
the tenanted premises to a third party would affect his bona fides
in seeking eviction. No doubt, the eviction petition was filed by
Khader after filing the suit for specific performance. However,
that does not preclude the landlord from invoking his statutory
right to seek eviction on the ground of bona fide need. The
landlord may have had many reasons for deciding to sell the
tenanted premises. Perhaps, instead of proceeding with the sale,
he thought it would be more prudent to start a business there to
generate income.
6. The human mind exercises its choice and options often
in varied circumstances; exigencies may force a person to
reverse a decision in pursuit of a more workable desire. Such
uncertainties of the human mind in making decisions cannot be
construed as malice or mala fides. The perplexities of the human
mind are obvious because the reasons behind a decision may not
always be consistent or fully satisfied, and the process of
decision-making is itself subject to change. Therefore, an
attempt to sell the tenanted premises will not, by itself, stand as
a testimony of the mala fides possessed by the landlord. Also,
the challenge made against the landlord's title, by itself, will not
RCREV. NO. 84 OF 2025 7 2025:KER:69043
foreclose him from seeking eviction as per the law.
7. Thus, we hold that no ground is made out to interfere
with the orders. However, we grant six months from today to the
tenants to vacate the building on the following terms and
conditions;
1) The revision petitioners/tenants shall undertake that
they will vacate the building within six months from today. They
shall file an undertaking within four weeks from today.
2) They shall pay the entire arrears within the above
time and shall continue to pay the rent due till the date of
delivery.
Accordingly, the Rent Control Revision filed by the
tenants stands dismissed.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
JUDGE
Sd/-
HARISANKAR V. MENON
JUDGE
rkj
