[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Joy vs Enasu on 6 January, 2026
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2026:KER:740
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 16TH POUSHA, 1947
RCREV. NO. 98 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 27.02.2025 IN RCA
NO.19 OF 2024 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT
- II, NORTH PARAVUR / I ADDITIONAL MACT/RENT CONTROL
APPELLATE AUTHORITY, NORTH PARAVUR ARISING OUT OF THE
ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 22.03.2024 IN RCP NO.3 OF 2018 OF RENT
CONTROL COURT, NORTH PARAVUR
REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
JOY, AGED 67 YEARS
S/O. JOSEPH, VADAKKUMCHERRI HOUSE,
CHERIYAPALLAMTHURUTH PARAVUR VILLAGE, PARAVUR
TALUK ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683513
BY ADVS.
SRI.SHEJI P.ABRAHAM
SHRI.ABRAHAM JOSEPH
SHRI.G.BALAMURALEEDHARAN (PARAVUR)
RESPONDENT/S:
ENASU, S/O. KUNJUVAREETH, MANAGALAPPILLY HOUSE
CHERUKADAPPURAM KARA PUTHENVELIKKARA VILLAGE,
PARAVUR TALUK ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683513
BY ADVS.
SRI.J.JULIAN XAVIER (CAVEATOR)
R.C.R No. 98 of 2025 :2: 2026:KER:740
SRI.FIROZ K.ROBIN
SRI.ROY JOSEPH
SMT.ANIES MATHEW
SHRI.AKHIL P.C.
SMT.ASWATHY SUSAN PAUL
THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 06.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
R.C.R No. 98 of 2025 :3: 2026:KER:740
ORDER
Jobin Sebastian, J.
This Rent Control Revision is filed by the respondent/tenant in
R.C.P. No.3/2018 on the file of the Rent Control Court (Munsiff), North
Paravur. The aforesaid R.C.P. was filed by the respondent herein, the
landlord, under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease
and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), seeking
eviction of the tenant.
2. The Rent Control Court, after considering the pleadings and
the evidence on record, passed an order of eviction on the ground of
arrears of rent, but declined to grant eviction on the ground of bona fide
need under Section 11(3) of the Act. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the
petition under Section 11(3), the landlord approached the Rent Control
Appellate Authority by filing R.C.A. No.19/2024. The respondent/tenant,
who was aggrieved by the order of eviction passed under Section 11(2)(b),
filed a cross-objection in the said appeal.
3. The Rent Control Appellate Authority, after hearing both sides
and considering the evidence on record, allowed the appeal filed by the
landlord, ordered eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act, and dismissed the
cross-objection filed by the tenant. Impugning the said judgment, the
present Rent Control Revision has been filed.
R.C.R No. 98 of 2025 :4: 2026:KER:740
4. Before delving into the question regarding the legality and
propriety of the impugned order, it is to be noted that the landlord-tenant
relationship between the parties is not in dispute. As already stated, the
landlord filed the Rent Control Petition seeking eviction of the revision
petitioner, the tenant of the building, on the grounds of arrears of rent and
bona fide need.
5. The Rent Control Court, after holistically considering the oral
and documentary evidence, including the rent deed, entered a finding that
the agreed monthly rent of the building was ₹5,000/-. The Court also
accepted the case of the landlord that rent was in arrears from February
2016 onwards.
6. Although the tenant contended that the default commenced
only from January 2017, no documents or receipts evidencing payment of
rent from February 2016 to January 2017 were produced. In the absence of
any such evidence, the bald contention of the tenant that rent was paid for
the said period cannot be accepted.
7. The tenant further contended that the arrears from January
2017 were not due to his default, but because the landlord was reluctant to
accept the rent. This contention was rightly found to be unsustainable by
both the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority, as the tenant
failed to establish that he had resorted to any of the statutory modes of
payment contemplated under Section 9 of the Act when the landlord
allegedly refused to accept rent.
R.C.R No. 98 of 2025 :5: 2026:KER:740
8. In short, the concurrent finding of the Rent Control Court and
the Appellate Authority that rent of the petition schedule building was in
arrears, attracting eviction under Section 11(2)(b) of the Act, suffers from
no illegality or infirmity.
9. The remaining question that arises for consideration is
whether the finding of the Rent Control Appellate Authority granting
eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act warrants interference.
10. In the Rent Control Petition, it is pleaded that the landlord's
son, who was working abroad, is now unemployed and intends to start a
business in the petition schedule shop room after evicting the tenant.
Undisputedly, to succeed under Section 11(3) of the Act, the landlord must
establish that he bona fide requires the building for his own occupation or
for the occupation of any member of his family dependent on him.
11. The term "dependency" used in Section 11(3) does not
connote financial dependency alone, but also dependency for occupation of
a building. It is well settled through a catena of decisions that, while
considering bona fide need, the Court has to examine whether the
requirement is natural, real, sincere, and honest. Further, when a landlord
asserts that he requires the building for his own occupation, the Rent
Control Court shall not proceed on a presumption that such requirement is
not bona fide (see Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [AIR 1999
SC 100]).
R.C.R No. 98 of 2025 :6: 2026:KER:740
12. In the present case, the need projected is for the landlord's
son to start a business in the petition schedule shop room. This need was
substantiated by the oral testimony of the landlord, examined as PW1. No
material was produced by the tenant to show that the landlord is in
possession of any other suitable building of his own in the same city, town,
or village.
13. After considering the pleadings and evidence, the Appellate
Authority arrived at the conclusion that the need projected under Section
11(3) is bona fide. There is nothing on record to indicate that the said
finding is perverse or patently illegal so as to warrant interference by this
Court.
14. The protection available to the tenant under the second
proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act has also been considered. The proviso
mandates that eviction shall not be ordered if the tenant is mainly
depending for his livelihood on the income derived from the business
carried on in the tenanted premises and if there is no other suitable
building available in the locality to carry on such business.
15. It is well settled that the burden of proving entitlement to
the protection under the second proviso lies squarely on the tenant. The
two ingredients of the proviso are conjunctive and not disjunctive; hence,
both must be satisfied. In the present case, the tenant failed to produce
convincing material to establish either that he mainly depends on the
income from the business carried on in the tenanted premises for his
livelihood or that no other suitable building is available in the locality.
R.C.R No. 98 of 2025 :7: 2026:KER:740
Therefore, the Appellate Authority was justified in holding that the tenant is
not entitled to the benefit of the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act.
16. It is also pertinent to note that the revisional jurisdiction
under Section 20 of the Act is limited and not as wide as the appellate
jurisdiction. A revisional court cannot reappreciate evidence and substitute
its own findings unless the findings of the Appellate Authority are shown to
be perverse or illegal.
17. In Regy V. Edathil v. Hubert Leslie D'Cruz [2016(2) KLJ 164],
a Division Bench of this Court held that the High Court (in revision) is
obliged to test the order of the Rent Control Court on the touchstone of
whether it is according to law. For that limited purpose, it may enter into a
reappraisal of evidence for the purpose of ascertaining whether the
conclusion arrived at by the Rent Control Court is wholly unreasonable or is
one that no reasonable person acting with objectivity could have reached
on the material available.
18. Viewed in the light of the above, the conclusion is irresistible
that the reasoning of the Rent Control Appellate Authority while ordering
eviction of the tenant under Section 11(3) of the Act is not perverse. There
is no illegality, irregularity, or impropriety in the order of the Rent Control
Appellate Authority, warranting interference in exercise of the revisional
jurisdiction of this Court under Section 20 of the Act.
Resultantly, the Rent Control Revision fails and is accordingly
dismissed. However, taking note of the fervent plea made by the learned
counsel for the revision petitioner, the petitioner/tenant is granted five
R.C.R No. 98 of 2025 :8: 2026:KER:740
months' time from the date of this order to vacate the building, subject to
the following conditions:
i) The respondent-tenant in the Rent Control Petition shall file
an affidavit before the Rent Control Court or the Execution
Court, as the case may be, within two weeks from the date of
receipt of a certified copy of this order, expressing an
unconditional undertaking that he will surrender vacant
possession of the petition schedule shop room to the
petitioner-landlord within five months from the date of this
order and that, he shall not induct third parties into
possession of the petition schedule shop room and further he
shall conduct any business in the petition schedule shop room
only on the strength of a valid licence/permission/consent
issued by the local authority/statutory authorities;
(ii) The respondent-tenant in the Rent Control Petition shall
deposit the entire arrears of rent as on date, if any, before the
Rent Control Court or the Execution Court, as the case may
be, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified
copy of this order, and shall continue to pay rent for every
succeeding months, without any default;
(iii) Needless to say, in the event of the respondent-tenant in
the Rent Control Petition failing to comply with any one of the
conditions stated above, the time limit granted by this order
to surrender vacant possession of the petition schedule shop
R.C.R No. 98 of 2025 :9: 2026:KER:740
room will stand cancelled automatically and the petitioner-
landlord will be at liberty to proceed with the execution of the
order of eviction.
Sd/-
DR.A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
JOBIN SEBASTIAN
JUDGE
vdv
