[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
B Reghunath vs Lawrence Alex on 13 February, 2026
RC Rev.No.40 of 2026 1
2026:KER:13238
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SOUMEN SEN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 24TH MAGHA, 1947
RCREV. NO. 40 OF 2026
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20.12.2025 IN RCA NO.11 OF 2025
OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - VII/RENT
CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM / III ADDITIONAL MACT,
ERNAKULAM ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER DATED 21.12.2024 IN RCP
NO.32 OF 2023 OF III ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT, ERNAKULAM (RENT
CONTROL)
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT
B REGHUNATH
AGED 72 YEARS
S/O V.C BALAKRISHNA PANICKER RESIDING AT NEST,
NEYTHELI NAGAR KAKKANAD P.O, ERNAKULAM KERALA, PIN -
682030
BY ADVS.
SRI.ALIAS M.CHERIAN
SRI.K.M.RAPHY
SHRI.BRISTO S PARIYARAM
SMT.MINNU DARWIN
SMT.RESHMA RAJESH
SHRI.SAVIO AUGUSTINE
RC Rev.No.40 of 2026 2
2026:KER:13238
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
LAWRENCE ALEX
AGED 46 YEARS
S/O LATE K.C FRANCIS KALOOR VEETTIL, KALOOR DESOM
ERNAKULAM VILLAGE, KOCHI, PIN - 682017
SRI.M.P. RAMANATH
THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
13.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RC Rev.No.40 of 2026 3
2026:KER:13238
ORDER
Soumen Sen, C. J.
The concurrent findings of facts with regard to the
bonafide need of the landlord under Section 11(3) of the Kerala
Building (Lease and Rent Control Act, 1965), ('the Act' for short) is
challenged in this Revision Petition.
2. The Revisional Court exercises much more limited
jurisdiction than a court of appeal, and it is within the confines of
such limitation, that the revisional court has to exercise its
jurisdiction. The scope of the revision is therefore, required to be
looked into.
3. The respondent herein is the landlord of the building in
question. The respondent-landlord filed an eviction proceeding
under Section 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act. Before the trial court
the landlord failed to establish the ground under Section 11(2),
however, was able to establish the bonafide need under Section
11(3) of the said Act. This order was challenged before the
Appellate Court.
2026:KER:13238
4. The Appellate Court considered the pleadings and the
evidence, both oral and documentary, and returned a finding that
the Rent Control Court was justified in allowing eviction on the
ground of bonafide requirement.
3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant
has submitted that the Appellate Court has failed to take into
consideration that in the premises of the building there is big
space of almost 1000 square feet available and accordingly, the
contention of the respondent/landlord that he requires the room
of the tenant which consists of approximately 500 sq. feet is a
ruse to evict the revision petitioner/tenant. However, this aspect
of the matter has been gone into detail by the Rent Control Court
as well as the Appellate Court.
4. Although it was alleged by the revision
petitioner/tenant that there are suitable accommodations for the
respondent/landlord where the business could be done, he failed
to establish that in fact the landlord has any other suitable
accommodation. On the contrary, the landlord was able to
2026:KER:13238
establish that his ancestral house was required to be demolished,
where he was running his business and for the purpose of his
office, he would not require a space more than 500 square feet.
The landlord cannot be asked to use the 1000 square feet that
may available to him for running his business as he could let out
the said property on more money for his better living. The need of
the respondent/landlord being established in the appeal by cogent
evidence and having regard to the fact that the claim is genuine
and not illusory, we are not inclined to interfere with the order
passed by the Appellate Court in this revisional jurisdiction. The
possession has already been delivered. The Revision Petition
stands dismissed.
In view of the fact that the satisfaction of the decree is yet
to be recorded in the execution proceeding, it will be open for the
revision petitioner/tenant to apply before the executing court for
removal of his belongings, documents and any other materials.
The executing court is requested to consider his prayer and
dispose of the said petition at the earliest and records satisfaction.
We make it clear that in the event such application is not filed
2026:KER:13238
within a week, it shall be presumed that the revision
petitioner/tenant is not interested to remove the materials and
the executing court shall record the satisfaction of the decree.
Sd/-
Soumen Sen
Chief Justice
Sd/-
Syam Kumar V.M.
Judge
smm
2026:KER:13238
APPENDIX OF RCREV. NO. 40 OF 2026
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21-01-2026
IN OP(RC) NO.21 OF 2026 PASSED BY THIS
HON'BLE COURT.
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION E.A NO. 3 OF
2026 IN EP NO. 96 OF 2026 IN RCP NO. 32 OF
2023 FILED BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF
COURT, ERNAKULAM
