[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Moosakutty.T vs Abdul Saleem on 24 February, 2026
2026:KER:16783
R.C.REV. NO. 193 OF 2024
1
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.
TUESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 5TH PHALGUNA, 1947
R.C.REV. NO. 193 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 14.08.2024 IN RCA NO.70 OF
2024 OF THE RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THALASSERY,
ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER DATED 30.03.2024 IN RCP NO.39
OF 2021 OF MUNSIF COURT, KUTHUPARAMBA
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT NO.1/RESPONDENT NO.1:
MOOSAKUTTY T., AGED 50 YEARS,
S/O LATE K.P ASSOO HAJI, RESIDING AT 'AL AMANA',
MOORIYAD, KUTHUPARAMBA, PIN - 670643.
BY ADVS.
SRI.ABDUL RAOOF PALLIPATH
SRI.E.MOHAMMED SHAFI
SRI.PRAJIT RATNAKARAN
SMT.KRISHNAPRIYA R.
SMT.SITHARA RAHEEM V.K.
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENT NO.2:
1 ABDUL SALEEM,
S/O U.V SAROOTY, RESIDING AT 'UMRAS', P.O
NIRMALAGIRI, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR, PIN -
670709.
2026:KER:16783
R.C.REV. NO. 193 OF 2024
2
2 RAHEEMA U.V,
D/O U.V SAROOTY, RESIDING AT 'EID VILLA',
MANGTTIDAM, KANNUR, PIN - 670701.
3 MUHAMMED ARIF,
S/O U.V UMMER, RESIDING AT ‘ADAMS',
ANAYIDUKKU, KANNORKARA.P.O, THANA, KANNUR, PIN -
670012.
4 MAHABOOB U.,
S/O UMMER.P.V, RESIDING AT ‘UMRAS', KAITHERI
KAPPANA, MANGATTIDAM, KANNUR, PIN - 670701.
5 RABIYA U.V,
W/O MUHAMMED FASAL.C.V, RESIDING AT 'UMRAS',
KAITHERI, MANAGTIDAM,KANNUR, PIN - 670701.
6 ULLI VEETIL MAHAMOOD,
S/O UMMER PUTHAN VALAPPIL, RESIDING AT V.V. HOUSE,
MANGATTIDAM, NIRMALAGIRI.P.O, KANNUR, PIN - 670701.
7 ASKAR ULLIYAVEETIL,
S/O UMMER PUTHAN VALAPPIL, RESIDING AT 'UMRAS',
KAITHERI, KAPPANA, MANGATTIDAM,
NIRMALAGIRI, KANNUR- 670701 REPRESENTED THROUGH
POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MUHAMMED ARIF, S/O U.V
UMMER, RESIDING AT 'ADAMS', ANAYIDUKKU,
KANNORKARA.P.O, THANA, KANNUR, PIN -670012.
8 SHABANA RAFI,
W/O MUHAMMED RAFI, RESIDING AT 'GREENS MAHAL',
STADIUM ROAD, CHANGANASSERY.P.O, KOTTAYAM, PIN -
686101.
9 ASHARAF,
AGED 55 YEARS, PROPRIETOR 'COLOURS READYMADE &
TEXTILES' T.C ROAD, OPP. TALUK HOSPITAL,
KUTHUPARAMBA, KANNUR, PIN - 670643.
BY ADV SRI.R.SURENDRAN
THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 24.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:16783
R.C.REV. NO. 193 OF 2024
3
JUDGMENT
( Dated this the 24th day of February, 2026 )
Syam Kumar V.M., J.
This Rent Control Revision is filed challenging the
judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority,
Thalassery, in R.C.A. No.70/2024, which arises from the
order of the Munsiff Court, Kuthuparamba, in R.C.P. No.
39/2021. The R.C.P. had been filed by the landlord seeking
eviction under Section 11(2) and Section 11(3) of the Kerala
Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. A claim for
enhancing the rent has also been raised therein. The Rent
Control Court had, vide order dated 30.03.2024, allowed
the R.C.P. holding that the arrears of rent as under Section
11(2) had been outstanding and that, a case had been
made out for directing eviction on the ground of non
payment of arrears of rent. Further, as regards Section
2026:KER:16783
R.C.REV. NO. 193 OF 2024
11(3), it was concluded that the bonafide need of the
landlord had been validly proved entitling an order of
eviction as the said ground too. Thus, under Section 11(2)
(a)(b) and Section 11(3), it was held that the landlord is
entitled to get vacant possession. As regards the fixation of
fair rate, an amount of ₹5000/- was fixed as fair rate after
taking note of the contention of the parties.
2. In the Rent Control Appeal that was filed by the
petitioner/tenant, the Rent Control Appellate Authority,
after detailed consideration of the contentions of both sides,
affirmed the findings and concluded, that, as regards
Section 11(2)(b), insofar as the tenant had failed to deposit
the rent in time and the rent amounts had been paid only
till September, 2025. The Rent Control Appellate Authority,
after detailed consideration, concluded that as per Section
11(3), the Rent Control Court was justified in finding that
the bondafide need of the landlord would prevail over the
contentions as raised by the tenant and confirmed the
2026:KER:16783
R.C.REV. NO. 193 OF 2024
findings in the said respect. The rent enhancement of
₹5000 was also confirmed by the appellate authority.
3. Before us, the tenant/revision petitioner con-
tends that the Rent Control Court had not properly appreci-
ated the contentions in Section 11 put forth by the tenant
countering the claim of the landlord in Section 11(3)
insofar as there had been earlier eviction proceedings
initiated by the landlord wherein a settlement had been
arrived at, whereby, even though the bonafide need raised
by the landlord was found in his favour, the building had
been leased out to other tenants. Even though a specific
contention with respect to the same had been raised before
the Rent Control Court, the same was not taken into
consideration. It was contended by the learned counsel for
the revision petitioner that, it was incumbent on the part of
the Rent Control Court as well as the Rent Control
Appellate Authority to have looked into the lack of
bonafides on the said court as well as the manner in which
2026:KER:16783
R.C.REV. NO. 193 OF 2024
the landlord had subsequent to the earlier rent control
proceedings whereby the total lack of bonafides on his part
had been revealed.
4. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for
the respondents also.
Soumen Sen, C.J.
5. Insofar as the bonafide need of the landlord is
concerned and the defence that the same is not bonafide
was argued in detail by the learned counsel for the
revision petitioner. On to the discussion made in brief by
the Rent Control Court, however, all the important issues
have been taken note of in arriving at a finding that the
claim of the landlord for eviction on the ground of bonafide
need, though the same cannot be said to be lucid. However,
Rent Control Appellate Authority has gone into detail upon
the same issue which is apparent from paragraph 19
onwards, in which issue No.2 was considered in detail,
2026:KER:16783
R.C.REV. NO. 193 OF 2024
after taking into consideration the factors to be proved
under Section 11 of the Act. The landlord was able to
establish that he required the tenanted premises for the
purpose of starting his own business, to which, the
argument was that the landlord was doing other businesses
at Mysore and as such the claim is not sustainable. This
was answered by the Rent Control Appellate Authority
relying upon the decision of this Court's Bench in
Gireeshbabu T.P. v. Jameela and Ors. [2021 (5) KHC SN 30]
and also, the decision of a Bench of this Court in Kurian
P.V. v. Sunny John [2016 (2) KHC 260]. It has been clearly
laid down therein that, in an eviction sought for bonafide
need, if the landlord is able to establish the need of
premises for the purpose of his business or for any other
purpose, then, merely because the landlord is having a
landed property or have an income from the said property
cannot be a relevant consideration. However, law does not
insists that if landlord is having other source of income, he
2026:KER:16783
R.C.REV. NO. 193 OF 2024
shall not carry out another activity or venture for starting a
business.
6. It is trite that unless the claim of the landlord
under Section 11(3) is made with an oblique motive, no
court will interfere with the requirement of the landlord of
suit premises or so much of it which has been necessary
and the Rent Control Court have considered all these aver-
ments and arrived at a concurrent finding based on proper
analysis of the evidences and correct appreciation of
relevant facts. Once the court have arrived at a finding that
if it has been able for the landlord to establish that he is in
bonafide need of the premises and is not a mere desire.
Moreover, it has been concurrent finding of the fact, based
on cogent evidence, that the eviction of said premises which
is claimed to be vacant by the petitioner is under
occupation of 'U.V.Asharaf' and the same fact emanated
from the cross examination of the RW1.
2026:KER:16783
R.C.REV. NO. 193 OF 2024
Syam Kumar V.M., J.
7. On a consideration of the detailed reasons put
forth by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, we find no
reason to interfere with the concurrent findings arrived at
by the court below.
8. At this point of time, Mr.E.Mohammed Shafi, the
learned counsel for the revision petitioner, submits that
some more time may be granted to his client so as to hand
over vacant possession of the premises and prays for six
months' time. The learned counsel appearing for the
respondent landlord fairly agrees to the same. We hereby
dispose of this revision petition without interfering with the
findings of the Rent Control Appellate Authority as well as
the Rent Control Court, however, granting a time period of
six months to the petitioner-tenant so as to vacate from the
relevant premises. An affidavit to this effect unconditionally
agreeing to vacate the tenented premises shall be filed by
2026:KER:16783
R.C.REV. NO. 193 OF 2024
the tenant before the Rent Control Court, Kuthuparamba.
Needless to say, as long as he will be continuing in the said
premises, the petitioner tenant shall be liable to pay
occupational charges at the rate of ₹5000/- which has
already been arrived at by the Rent Control Court as part of
fixation of rent. An affidavit, as directed above, shall be filed
within a period of two weeks before the Rent Control Court,
Kuthuparamba.
The Rent Control Revision is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
Soumen Sen
Chief Justice
Sd/-
Syam Kumar V.M.
Judge
MMG
