IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH
FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 2016/10TH ASHADHA, 1938
RCRev..No. 192 of 2016 ()
----------------------------------RCA 95/2014 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, KOZHIKODE. RCP 49/2010 of RENT CONTROL COURT, KOZHIKODE.
REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT IN R.C.A.-RESPONDENT IN R.C.P.:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DAINA
D/O.LATE CLINTON COWTHER, AGED 69, BUILDING NO.38/54, POST WEST HILL, THEKKEDATH PARAMBA, CALICUT, KACHERI AMSOM AND DESOM OF KOZHIKODE TALUK, PIN 673005.
BY ADVS. SRI. S.V. BALAKRISHNA IYER (SR) SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN SRI.P.M.NEELAKANDAN SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS IN R.C.A.-PETITIONERS 1,2&4 TO 7 IN R.C.P.:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. NARANGALI THAYYIL INDIRA
D/O.LATE NARANGALI THAYYIL CHANDRAMATHI, AGED 74, NARANGALI BUILDING, PUTHIYANGADI VILLAGE, PUTHIYANGADI AMSOM AND DESOM, PIN 673021.
2. NARANGALI THAYYIL HYMAVATHI,
D/O.LATE NARANGALI THAYYIL CHANDRAMATHI, AGED 73, NARANGALI BUILDING, PUTHIYANGADI VILLAGE, PUTHIYANGADI AMSOM AND DESOM, PIN 673021.
3. SURENDRAN S/O.KRISHNAN, AGED 80, KOLAZHI BUILDING, KOORKKANCHERI VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK, PIN 680007.
## 4. K.S.SUNEESH KUMAR
S/O.SURENDRAN, AGED 43,
KOLAZHI BUILDING,
KOORKKANCHERI VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK, PIN 680007.
5. K.S.SUDHEESH
S/O.SURENDRAN, KOLAZHI BUILDING, KOORKKANCHERI VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK, PIN 680007.
6. K.S.SUBEESH
S/O.SURENDRAN, AGED 41, KOLAZHI BUILDING, KOORKKANCHERI VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK, PIN 680007.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.K..RAKESH ROSHAN (CAVEATOR) R1-R6 BY ADV. SRI.K.RAKESH ROSHAN
R1-R6 BY ADV. SMT.THUSHARA.V
THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-07-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
## K. SURENDRA MOHAN & MARY JOSEPH, JJ.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.C.R. No. 192 of 2016 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 1[st] day of July, 2016.
## ORDER
## Surendra Mohan, J.
The tenant is in revision challenging the order of eviction granted by the Rent Control Court, Kozhikode in R.C.P. No. 49 of 2010 and confirmed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority in R.C.A. No. 95 of 2014.
2. The revision petitioner tenant is an aged person in her late 60s, who is in occupation of a tiled residential building. The building originally belonged to one Chandramathi, who is no more. On her demise, the property has devolved upon the respondents herein who are her children. They are co-owners in respect thereof. They filed the Rent Control Petition on the grounds under Section 11(2) (b) and Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent
RCR.192/2016.
2
Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). The need that was put forward was that of the son-in-law of the first respondent, who wanted to start and conduct a bakery business. It was stated that he had no avocation of his own.
3. The need that was put forward was seriously disputed by the tenant. According to her, there were no arrears of rent. It was contended that the son-in-law was not dependent on the first respondent and that, the need that was projected was only a ruse for eviction. It was pointed out that, the daughter of the first respondent was an employee of a Co-operative Bank. Therefore, they were not dependent on the first respondent.
4. The parties went to trial on the above pleadings. The evidence in the case consists of the oral testimonies of PWs 1 and 2 and the documents marked as Exts. A1 series and A2. The tenant examined herself as RW1. There is no
RCR.192/2016.
3
documentary evidence on her side. Ext.C1 is the Commission Report.
5. The Rent Control Court considered the evidence on record in the light of the contentions advanced by the parties. The Rent Control Court found that the landlord had succeeded in establishing both the grounds of arrears of rent as well as bona fide need. Therefore, an order of eviction was granted.
6. The tenant carried the matter in appeal. On a reappreciation of the evidence, the Rent Control Appellate Authority concurred with the findings of the Rent Control Court. Accordingly, R.C.A. No. 95 of 2014 has been dismissed. The petitioner is aggrieved by the said judgment.
7. According to the Senior Counsel Adv. S.V. Balakrishna Iyer, the son-in-law is not a member of the Family. Therefore, it is contended that even assuming the need to be genuine, no order of eviction could be granted
RCR.192/2016.
4
under Section 11(3) of the Act. It is the further contention of the learned Senior Counsel that the son-in-law has a poultry business of his own. The daughter of the first respondent, who is his wife, is employed in a Co-operative Bank. Therefore, it is contended that they are not dependent on the mother-in-law.
8. The respondents had lodged a caveat. Adv.Rakesh Roshan appears for them. According to the learned counsel, the only son of the revision petitioner has put up another house close to the tenanted building after the filing of the Rent Control Petition. However, he has let out the said building on a higher rent. Therefore, the revision petitioner is not a person who does not have any other place to reside. It is contended by the learned counsel that, the son-in-law is a person who comes within the connotation of the expression 'family' and therefore, an order of eviction to satisfy his needs is perfectly legal. Reliance is placed on a
RCR.192/2016.
5
Division Bench decision of this Court in Janaki v. Govindan Nair (2003 KHC 1154). It is therefore contended that there are no grounds to admit this revision.
9. Heard. The question as to whether a daughter-in-law would come within the connotation of 'family' has come up for consideration in the decision in Janaki 's case (supra). A Division Bench of this Court has considered this question with reference to the dictionary meaning of the expression as well as the statutory provision. Speaking for the Bench Justice K.S.Radhakrishnan (as he then was) has summed up the issue in the following words:
“We are of the view, in the socio economic condition of our country, the expression “family” has to be given a wider meaning which is elastic and that it has to be determined on the facts and circumstances of each case and the status of the dependent in the family. In the instant case, daughter in law is dependent on the father in law. There is strong family bond between the father and son and daughter in law and father in law. All
RCR.192/2016.
6
of them are to be treated as members of the same family. In that view of the matter, we are of the view that the expression family would take in daughter in law as well. The requirement of the daughter in law would also be the requirement of the son also in the family set up.”
10. We are in respectful agreement with the said dictum. By the same reasoning, the said dictum is applicable in the case of son-in-law also. Therefore, we hold that the son-in-law is a person coming within the expression 'family' under the Act. Consequently, an order of eviction to satisfy his needs is perfectly justified.
11. The next question is whether the son-in-law could be said to be dependent on the first respondent. The case of the tenant is that the son-in-law has a poultry farm of his own. When the son-in-law was examined as PW2, the above aspect was put to him as a suggestion. He has refuted the allegation and stated that he does not have any poultry
RCR.192/2016.
7
business as alleged. Nothing has been brought on record to justify a conclusion that the said assertion of PW2 is not true. Therefore, the authorities below have placed reliance on his testimony to find that he does not have any independent avocation of his own. We do not find any ground to take a different view of the matter.
12. The other aspect that has been put forward is that, the daughter of the first respondent being employed in a Co-operative Bank, it cannot be said that either she or her husband was dependent on the first respondent. The said contention cannot hold water for the reason that even assuming that they were not financially dependent on the first respondent, it cannot be said that they are not dependent on her for the purpose of the premises from which they want to start their business. There is absolutely nothing on record to show that PW2 has any other building that is sufficient to satisfy his need.
RCR.192/2016.
8
13. The further contention is that the first respondent is only one of the co-owners of the property and that for the said reason, an order of eviction to satisfy the need of the son-in-law of one of them was not justified. The said contention also cannot be sustained for the reason that none of the other co-owners have objected to the need that has been projected. On the contrary, they have all joined together to file the Rent Control Petition, accepting and endorsing the need that has been put forward as their own. In view of the above, we are not satisfied that any interference with the concurrent findings of the authorities below is required in revision.
14. As a last submission, the learned Senior counsel seeks for the grant of some time to surrender vacant possession of the tenanted building to the landlords. The request is vehemently opposed by the counsel for the
RCR.192/2016.
9
respondents.
15. Having considered the respective contentions, we are of the opinion that it is necessary to grant time till 31.12.2016 to the revision petitioner to surrender vacant possession of the premises, but subject to conditions.
In the result, it is ordered as follows:
- (i) The Rent Control Petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed.
(ii) The revision petitioner is granted time up to 31.12.2016 to surrender vacant possession of the premises to the landlords, on condition that she swears to an affidavit before the execution court in R.C.P. No. 49 of 2010, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, unconditionally undertaking to surrender vacant possession of the premises to the landlords on or before 31.12.2016. It shall be a further condition for the grant of such time
RCR.192/2016.
10
that the revision petitioner pays the entire arrears of rent, if any, remaining unpaid and continues to pay the rent in respect of the premises to the landlords, without any delay or default until vacant possession is surrendered to them.
(iii) It is made clear that in the event of the tenant committing default in complying with any of the conditions, she shall forfeit the benefit of the above directions.
K. SURENDRA MOHAN
JUDGE
MARY JOSEPH JUDGE
sb
