Kiran Raj

The Kerala High Court Division Bench, comprising Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice P. Krishna Kumar, dismissed a revision petition challenging an eviction order granted under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The court upheld the Rent Control Appellate Authority’s conclusion that the landlords required the premises for bona fide purposes, rejecting the tenant’s contention that the landlords possessed alternative vacant spaces suitable for their proposed business. The court observed, “The landlords being the best Judges of their cause, neither the tenant nor the court is expected to command them that they should alter the structure of the vacant rooms in their possession to suit them for starting the proposed business.”

The matter originated from an eviction petition filed by the landlords in 1997 under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act. The landlords contended that the first respondent required the premises to establish a hardware business. The tenant resisted the claim, arguing that the landlords possessed other vacant premises suitable for the same purpose. The Rent Control Court initially dismissed the eviction petition, finding no bona fide requirement. However, the Rent Control Appellate Authority reversed this decision and ordered eviction. The High Court subsequently remanded the case for fresh evidence, particularly in light of the landlords’ acquisition of three vacant shop rooms following an earlier eviction order in R.C.P. No. 19/1992.

Also Read: Supreme Court to Assam Government: Deport 63 Declared Foreigners Immediately, Lack of Address Not a Justification

Upon reconsideration, the Rent Control Court again dismissed the eviction petition, concluding that the landlords had alternative premises. This decision was set aside by the Appellate Authority, which found that the landlords' need was bona fide. A commissioner appointed by the trial court submitted Ext.C1 report, detailing the measurements of the petition-scheduled building and the alternative rooms. The commissioner was also examined as a witness.

The Rent Control Court observed, “The petition schedule building is having a total area of 647.52 sq. feet. The room in RCP No. 19/92 has a total area of 482.93 sq. feet. The room occupied by Sri. Reji is having an area of 206.81 sq. feet. The rooms in RCP 19/92 and the room occupied by Sri. Reji earlier are having a total area of 689.74 sq. feet.” The trial court reasoned that these rooms, when combined, would be more suitable for the proposed business, and since the landlords did not utilize these premises, their claim lacked bona fides.

On appeal, the Rent Control Appellate Authority rejected this reasoning, stating that landlords are not required to modify their property to accommodate business needs. The appellate court found that the tenant failed to prove any circumstances justifying the invocation of the first proviso to Section 11(3) and upheld the eviction order. The tenant then approached the High Court in the present revision petition, arguing that Ext.C1 report confirmed the existence of alternative premises, thereby negating the landlords’ claim.

After reviewing the records, the Kerala High Court affirmed the Appellate Authority’s findings. The court stated, “Matters of this nature should fall within the exclusive domain of the landlord, and the court should refrain from delving into such areas.” It rejected the argument that the landlords should be compelled to merge vacant rooms into a single unit for business purposes, noting that such structural modifications involve financial and architectural considerations that the court cannot impose upon landlords.

The court also addressed the relevance of subsequent events in determining bona fide requirements, stating, “Only those subsequent events which completely eclipse the need of the landlord, are decisive for overturning the eviction order.” The court concluded that the mere availability of other premises, if unsuitable without modifications, does not invalidate the landlords’ claim. The burden to establish that the landlords had obtained a suitable alternative premise rested with the tenant, and the High Court found that the Rent Control Court had misplaced this burden on the landlords.

Also Read: Orissa High Court Upholds Dismissal of Police Officer: ‘Integrity in Uniformed Services Cannot Be Compromised’

Dismissing the revision petition, the High Court granted the tenant four months time to vacate the prmises subject to conditions, including the filing of an affidavit before the Rent Control Court or Execution Court, payment of arrears of rent, and an undertaking to vacate the premises within the stipulated period. The court stated, “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 room will stand cancelled automatically, and the landlords will be at liberty to proceed with the execution of the order of eviction.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Revision Petitioner: Meena A, Kurian Antony Edassery, Vinod Ravindranath, C. Kiran, R. Mini, Anish Antony Anathazhath,Thareeq Anver K., Nivedhitha Prem V., Advocates

For the Respondents: Sadchith P. Kurup, C.P. Anil Raj, Siva Suresh, B. Sreedevi, Athira Vijayan. Advocates

Case Title: P.M. Ismail v. Abbas & Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:20458
Case Number: RCRev. No. 165 of 2024
Bench: Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque, Justice P. Krishna Kumar

[Read/Download order]