Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1264 (KER)

Balan, S/o. Apputty v. Aboobacker, S/o. Moideen

2025-05-20

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JOHNSON JOHN

body2025
ORDER : (A. Muhamed Mustaque, J.) The revision petitioner is the tenant. The tenant challenges an order of eviction under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short, “the Act”). 2. The landlord approached the Rent Control Court alleging that the tenant defaulted on the payment of rent from November 2000 onwards. The landlord also claims eviction on the ground of bona fide need. The need projected was for the first respondent, who is aged 60 years, to start a furniture business. The tenant resisted the application. However, the finding of facts shows that the tenant defaulted to pay the rent arrears. There is nothing on record to discredit the finding of facts by the Rent Control Court as well as the Rent Control Appellate Authority. 3. In regard to the bona fide need projected, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant vehemently argued that the landlord has crossed the age of 60 and the building is more than a hundred years old, and therefore, there is no bona fides in seeking eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act. 4. The age of the landlord and the age of the building cannot be a criteria to hold that the need projected is not bona fide. The test under Section 11(3) of the Act is objective. In the absence of any mala fides attributed against the landlord, both the courts below concurrently found that the need projected by the landlord is bona fide. It also came out that the tenant is not entitled to the proviso protection, as he failed to prove both the limbs under the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act to establish that the income derived from the petition schedule building was his main source of livelihood and that there are no other vacant buildings. 5. Having gone through the order, we find that the findings of facts rendered by both the authorities do not warrant any interference by invoking our revisional jurisdiction, and accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed. However, taking note of the fervent plea made by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, we grant six months time on the following terms and conditions: (i) An undertaking shall be filed before the Rent Control Court, within four weeks from today, that the revision petitioner-tenant will vacate the building within the time granted. However, taking note of the fervent plea made by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, we grant six months time on the following terms and conditions: (i) An undertaking shall be filed before the Rent Control Court, within four weeks from today, that the revision petitioner-tenant 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.