C.P. Bahuleyan v. Branch Manager, M/S. Manappuram Finance Ltd., Thuravoor Branch; Manappuram Finance Ltd., Administrative Office at V/104, Manappuram House, Valappad, Thrissur (RCR No.170/2022)

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN WEDNESDAY, THE 12[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 20TH ASWINA, 1944** **RCREV. NO. 170 OF 2022** **[AGAINST THE ORDER IN RCP NO.3 OF 2017 OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, CHERTHALA CONCURRING WITH THE COMMON JUDGMENT IN RCA NO.17 OF 2018 OF RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, ALAPPUZHA]** ## **REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS IN RCA NO.17/2018 AND RESPONDENTS IN RCP NO.3/2017:** 1 BRANCH MANAGER M/S. MANAPPURAM FINANCE LTD., THURAVOOR BRANCH, THURAVOOR , REP BY LEGAL MANAGER- AND AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR.M.G.PRIYALAL 2 MANAPPURAM FINANCE LTD., ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE AT V/104, MANAPPURAM HOUSE, VALAPPAD, THRISSUR, REP BY LEGAL MANAGER- AND AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR.M.G.PRIYALAL BY ADVS. B.S.SURESH KUMAR ASHLEY JOHN ## **RESPONDENT:** C.P. BAHULEYAN, AGED 74 YEARS, S/O. PADMANABHAN, NILA NIVAS, THURAVOOR P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA-688 532. BY ADV B ASHOK SHENOY & P.S GIREESH (CAVEATORS) **THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** RCR No.170/2022 2 ## **O R D E R** ## SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, J. This Rent Control Revision is filed by the respondents-tenants in Rent Control Petition and the appellants in Rent Control Appeal, challenging the Judgment in R.C.A.No.17/2018 dated 18.6.2022 by the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Additional District Judge-II), Alappuzha and the order dated 21.08.2018 passed by the Rent Control Court, Cherthala in R.C.P.No.3/2017. For convenience, we shall refer to the parties with reference to their status in the rent control petition, unless otherwise stated. 2. The revision petitioners are the respondentstenants in R.C.P.No.3/2017 on the files of the Rent Control Court, Cherthala. The respondent-landlord filed a petition for eviction under Sections 11(3) and 11(4)(ii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short, 'the Act') before the Rent Control Court. The Rent Control Court allowed the petition under Section 11(3) of the Act and RCR No.170/2022 3 dismissed the prayer under Section 11(4)(ii) of the Act. An appeal was preferred by the tenant under Section 18(1)(b) of the Act against the aforesaid order of the Rent Control Court and it was dismissed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Additional District Judge-II), Alappuzha. Hence, the tenant has come up with this revision under Section 20 of the Act. 3. Today, when the matter came up for admission, the respondent for whom a caveat petition was filed entered appearance through their counsel. We heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners-tenants and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-landlord. 4. The petition for eviction was filed by the landlord contending that the petition schedule property was required to run an ayurvedic clinic for his daughter Smt.Jyothilekshmi and it was the further contention of the landlord that there was no suitable building for his daughter to start an ayurvedic clinic. 5. The tenants resisted the prayer for eviction contending that the other suitable rooms are available in the RCR No.170/2022 4 locality for starting an ayurvedic clinic. Since the tenanted premises is on the first floor, it will not be suitable for starting clinic for his daughter. More over, it was contended that the tenants had spent huge amount for furnishing the first floor for their business purpose and they have just started the business and it was difficult for them to shift their office from the tenanted premises. PW1 and RW1 were examined and Exts.A1 to A4 and B1 were received in evidence before the Rent Control Court. 6. The contentions of the landlord that the tenanted building was required for the _bona fide_ need of his daughter, who is a BAMS graduate and that there is no suitable place available in the locality for his daughter to start a clinic were not disproved by the tenants even during the crossexamination. There was failure on the part of the tenants to plead and prove that they are entitled to get protection under both the limbs of second proviso to Section 11(3). The case of the tenants that other buildings are available in the locality was also not proved by them. The Rent Control Court found RCR No.170/2022 5 that the need put forward by the landlord is a genuine need and the petitioner is entitled to evict the tenants under Section 11(3) of the Act. As regards the prayer seeking vacant possession of the tenanted premises under Section 11(4)(ii) of the Act, the Rent Control Court found that there was no pleading in the petition and no evidence was adduced by the petitioner to show that the tenants have reduced the utility of the petition schedule building and hence the prayer under Section 11(4)(ii) was dismissed. The order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court was assailed before the appellate authority and the appellate authority considered the matter in detail and after the re-appreciation of evidence, confirmed the findings of the Rent Control Court. 7. The learned counsel for the landlord argued that the courts below found that the need urged by the landlord is _bona fide_ and there was nothing on record to doubt his honesty or sincerity in the need projected by him. The Appellate Authority relying on the Judgment in **A.V.M.Ltd.** v. **Dr.Sunil.P.Shenoy** [1995(2) KLT 5] found that the tenant is RCR No.170/2022 6 a company running a financial institution in the petition schedule room and hence, the second proviso to Section 11(3) is not applicable in the case of companies and the second proviso to Section 11(3) has no scope in the case on hand. 8. Section 11 of the Act deals with eviction of tenants. As per Section 11(1), notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract a tenant shall not be evicted, whether in execution of a decree or otherwise, except in accordance with the provisions of this Act. As per Section 11(3) of the Act, a landlord may apply to the Rent Control Court, for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building if he bona fide needs the building for his own occupation or for the occupation by any member of his family dependent on him. As per the first proviso to Section 11(3), the Rent Control Court shall not give any such direction if the landlord has another building of his own in his possession in the same city, town or village except where the Rent Control Court is satisfied that RCR No.170/2022 7 for special reasons, in any particular case it will be just and proper to do so. As per the second proviso to Section 11(3), the Rent Control Court shall not give any direction to a tenant to put the landlord in possession, if such tenant is depending for his livelihood mainly on the income derived from any trade or business carried on in such building and there is no other suitable building available in the locality for such person to carry on such trade or business. 9. In **Adil Jamshed Frenchman v. Sardur Dastur Schools Trust [(2005) 2 SCC 476]** the Apex Court reiterated that, as laid down in **Shiv Samp Gupta v. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta [(1999) 6 SCC 222]** a bona fide requirement must be an outcome of a sincere and honest desire in contradistinction with a mere pretext for evicting the tenant on the part of the landlord claiming to occupy the premises for himself or for any member of the family which would entitle the landlord to seek ejectment of the tenant. The question to be asked by a judge of facts by placing himself in the place of the landlord is whether in the given RCR No.170/2022 8 facts proved by the material on record the need to occupy the premises can be said to be natural, real, sincere and honest. The concept of _bona fide_ need or genuine requirement needs a practical approach instructed by the realities of life. As reiterated in **Deena Nath v. Pooran Lal [(2001) 5 SCC 705]** bona fide requirement has to be distinguished from a mere whim or fanciful desire. The bona fide requirement is in praesenti and must be manifested in actual need so as to convince the court that it is not a mere fanciful or whimsical desire. ## 10. In **Ammu v. Nafeesa [2015 (5) KHC 718]** a Division Bench of this Court held that, it is a settled proposition of law that the need put forward by the landlord has to be examined on the presumption that the same is a genuine one, in the absence of any materials to the contra. In ## **Gireeshbabu T. P. v. Jameela and others [2021 (5) KHC** **SN 30]** this Court reiterated that in order to satisfy the requirement of Section 11(3) of the Act, a bona fide need must be an outcome of a sincere and honest desire of the RCR No.170/2022 9 landlord in contradistinction with a mere pretext on the part of the landlord for evicting the tenant, claiming to occupy the premises for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him. Once, on the basis of the materials on record, the landlord has succeeded in showing that the need to occupy the premises is natural, real, sincere and honest, and not a ruse to evict the tenant from the said premises, the landlord will certainly be entitled for an order of eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act, of course, subject to the first and second provisos to Section 11(3) of the Act. 11. Whether the need urged by the respondent is honest or sincere has to be adjudged in the light of the principle laid down in the aforesaid decisions. The daughter of landlord is a BAMS graduate. He categorically stated that he wants the building to start a clinic for his daughter. In such circumstances, desire of landlord to get the tenanted premises vacated cannot be said to be urged without any honesty or sincerity. 12. As per Section 20 of the Act, the scope of RCR No.170/2022 10 interference by revisional court is restricted to examine the records for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality, regularity or propriety of such order or proceedings. On verification of the entire facts of the case, we hold that the need put forth by the respondent-landlord is genuine, real and honest and that the revision petitioners-tenants have failed to satisfy the first and second provisos to Section 11(3) of the Act. It is out of an honest and genuine desire, the - respondent landlord has approached the court below with a prayer for eviction and that cannot be interfered with by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Act. 13. On a consideration of the entire facts in this case, we are of the opinion that the judgment and order of the courts below cannot be interfered with by this Court in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Act. In such circumstances, the concurrent findings of the courts below cannot be found fault with and hence we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment. RCR No.170/2022 11 14. Having considered the entire matter in detail, this revision petition fails and hence, we dismiss it. 15. Taking note of the request made by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners-tenants to grant sufficient time for vacating the premises, we grant time up to 30.04.2023 to surrender vacant possession of the petition schedule shop room, subject to the following conditions: - (i) The respondents-tenants in the Rent Control Petition shall file an undertaking before the Rent Control Court or the Execution Court, as the case may be, within one month from today, that he will vacate the shop room, on or before 30.04.2023. - (ii) The respondents-tenants in the Rent Control Petition shall deposit the entire arrears of rent within 45 (forty five) days from today and shall continue to pay rent till 30.04.2023, without any default; - (iii) Needless to say, in the event of the respondents-tenants in the Rent Control Petition failing to comply with any of the conditions stated above, the time limit granted by RCR No.170/2022 12 this order to surrender vacant possession of the petition schedule shop room will stand cancelled automatically and the petitioner-landlord in the Rent Control Petition will be at liberty to proceed with the execution of the order of eviction. Sd/- ## **A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE** **JUDGE** Sd/- **SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN** **JUDGE** MBS/