N. SADANANDA S/O LATE N. KRISHNA v. JAYANTHI W/O LATE K. MADHAVA & ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BABU FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017/26TH KARTHIKA, 1939 RCRev..No. 166 of 2017 -------------------------RCA 13/2015 of THE RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY (DISTRICT COURT), KASARAGOD RCP 9/2013 of THE COURT OF THE RENT CONTROLLER (PRL.MUNSIFF), KASARAGOD REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO.1: ------------------------------------------------ N.SADANANDA S/O LATE. N. KRISHNA, AGED 51 YEARS, RESIDING AT DOOR NO.XXII/884, MADHUVANA BUILDING, BASIYADKA ROAD, P.O. KUMBLA, KOIPADY VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADVS.SRI.V.T.MADHAVANUNNI SRI.V.A.SATHEESH RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS & RESPONDENT NO.3 TO 9: ------------------------------------------------- 1. JAYANTHI W/O LATE. K. MADHAVA, AGED 66 YEARS, RESIDING AT MATTUKRIPA, P.O. KUMBLA, KOIPADY VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 2. PUSHPALATHA W/O SUDHAKARAN, AGED 46 YEARS, RESIDING AT NAIKAP, P.O, EDANAD, KOIPADY VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 3. PRAMOD S/O LATE. K. MADHAVA, AGED 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT MATTUKRIPA, P.O., KUMBLA, KOIPADY VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 4. VANISHREE D/O LATE. K.MADHAVA, AGED 39 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHINMAYA COLONY, VIDHYANAGAR PO, KASABA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK. KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 5. AMMINI, W/O LATE. N.KRISHNA, AGED 69 YEARS, RESIDING AT NARAYANA MANGALAM PO, KUMBALA, KOIPADY VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. RCRev..No. 166 of 2017 -2- 6. PADMANABHA S/O LATE N. KRISHNA, AGED 69 YEARS, RESIDING AT MANNIPPADY, P.O.KUDLU, KUDLU VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK., KASARAGOD DISTRICT 7. INDIRA D/O LATE. N. KRISHNA, AGED 57 YEARS, RESIDING AT PARAMBIL, P.O.UDINA, UDINA VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 8. SHYLAJA, D/O LATE. N.KRISHNA, AGED 54 YEARS, RESIDING AT MANHIPADY, P.O.KUDLU, KUDLU VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 9. GIRISH S/O LATE. N. KRISHNA, AGED 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT NARAYANA MANGALAM, P.O. KUMBLA, KOIPADY VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 10. PRAVEEN, S/O LATE. N.KRISHNA, AGED 46 YEARS, RESIDING AT NARAYAN MANGALAM, P.O. KUMBLA, KOIPADY VILLAGE, KASARGOD TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 11. VEENA, D/O LATE. N. KRISHNA, AGED 57 YEARS, RESIDING AT MUJANGAV, I.C ROAD, NAIKAP, P.O. EDANAD, KOIPADY VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. R5-R11 BY SRI.M.S.VINEETH R1-R4 BY SRI.D.KRISHNA PRASAD R1-R4 BY SMT.S.SANTHY R1-R4 BY SMT.MINI V.MENON R1-R4 BY SRI.P.VISHNU PRASAD THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17-11-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ## **K.HARILAL & A.M.BABU, JJ** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.C.R.166 of 2017 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated : 17[th] November, 2017 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## **ORDER** ## Harilal, J. 1.The revision petitioner is the tenant who is confronting with an order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court under Section 11(8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short 'the Act'), which stands confirmed in appeal, without any interference. Thus, the legality and propriety of the concurrent findings of the courts below under Section 11(8) of the Act granting an order of eviction have come up in revision before us. The landlord filed the Rent Control Petition under Section 11(8) of the Act with averments that 'A' schedule room which is in occupation of the tenant and the adjacent shop room which is occupied by the petitioner form a part of the same building. The petitioner bona fide requires the tenanted premises for the extension of his **RCR.166/17** 2 existing grocery business. The respondent resisted the claim for additional accommodation contending that there is no requirement for additional accommodation as the shop room, in which the petitioner is conducting the grocery business, is sufficient for the said business. Further, he claimed that the hardship that may be caused to him, if an order of eviction is passed, would outweigh the advantage to the petitioner. - 2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. - 3.The learned counsel for the respondents/tenants submits that the requirement of expansion was not pleaded or proved by the petitioner. When the 3[rd] petitioner was examined as PW1, he admitted that he does not intend to add more items in his business and the said statement would amount to an admission which would negate the requirement of expansion. Further, he **RCR.166/17** 3 himself admitted that if an order of eviction is passed, that may cause hardship to the tenant. But the courts below have omitted to consider the aforesaid evidence in its correct perspective while considering the bona fides of the requirement. It is also contended that the tenanted premises and the shop room in occupation of the landlord do not form a part of the same building in view of the decision in Gangaram v. N.Shankar Reddy (1988 (4) SCC 648). 4.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioners/landlords advanced arguments to justify the concurrent findings of the courts below on the aforesaid contentions. Going by the impugned judgment it is seen that it is the specific case of the petitioners that the 3[rd] petitioner is conducting grocery business in a shop room adjacent to the tenanted premises which is in occupation of the respondent; the 3[rd] petitioner intends to expand his grocery business and for that purpose, the tenanted **RCR.166/17** 4 ## premises is required. 5.In order to prove the said contention, he was examined as PW1 and he has testified the requirement for additional accommodation. He offered himself for cross-examination to the respondent as to bona fides of his additional requirement. The courts below concurrently observed that the respondent failed to bring out any material in cross-examination so as to doubt the bona fides of the requirement for additional accommodation. - 6.As regards pleadings it is trite law that in a rent control petition meticulous pleadings is not required particularly when both parties rightly understood the rival pleas and the landlord offered himself for cross-examination by the respondent so as to elicit the particulars or the details of the desire or plan in his mind. In the instant case, both parties rightly understood their rival claims and let in **RCR.166/17** 5 evidence to prove their respective claims. Further, the materials on record would show that the 3[rd] petitioner has succeeded in proving the bona fides of his requirement for additional accommodation and the courts below placed reliance on his evidence. We do not find any reason to interfere with the said finding in the absence of any kind of perversity in the said finding. 7.Coming to the deposition of PW1 it has come out in evidence that when he was cross examined by the respondent, he admitted that he does not intend to add more items in his business. We are of the opinion that the expansion of an existing business is not confined or limited to addition of more items only and a business can be expanded in several ways. A business can be expanded by purchasing and selling larger quantity of commodities also to get more profit and for that additional space is required. So merely on the reason that the landlord has no **RCR.166/17** 6 intention to add more items, it cannot be said that the requirement for additional accommodation is false or unbelievable. 8.Similarly it is proved that during the crossexamination PW1 has stated that if an order of eviction is passed that may cause difficulty to the respondent. We are of the opinion that all eviction orders are painful to the tenants and it is a fact. Merely on the reason that the landlord admitted that the eviction order may cause difficulty to the tenants it cannot be held that he admitted that the hardship that may be caused to the tenant would outweigh the advantage to the landlord. In the above view, we find that there is no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below that hardship that may be caused to the tenant, if an order of eviction is passed, will not outweigh the advantage to the respondent. 9.The learned counsel for the petitioner **RCR.166/17** 7 vehemently contended that an order of eviction under Section 11(8) of the Act cannot be passed unless the landlord and tenant occupy the same room without a wall for separating their respective occupations. The learned counsel cited the decision reported in Gangaram v. N.Shankar Reddy (1988 (4) SCC 648) to fortify the aforesaid argument. We have meticulously gone through the facts of the decision cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his argument and we find that the facts of the said case is entirely different and the proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in that decision cannot be applied to the instant case. In that case, the landlord and tenant were occupying rooms in separate buildings, having separate building numbers. Subsequently the landlord purchased his room and thereafter removed the wall separating two buildings and joined together and thereafter filed rent control petition claiming an order of eviction under Section 11(8) of the Act. Thus, **RCR.166/17** 8 the tenant was in occupation of the premises even before the landlord purchased the other building. Even at the time of filing the rent control petition, both buildings have separate building numbers. In the above context, the Supreme Court considered the requirement of additional accommodation and found that the landlord and tenant were occupying different rooms in different buildings though subsequently he purchased and removed the wall and joined both building together. 10.That apart, we find that in the aforesaid decision Section 10(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 is seen interpreted in a different context. There is no ambiguity in Section 11(8) of the Act and according to the said provision if the landlord and tenant are occupying different rooms, whether adjacent or not, in the same building, the landlord is entitled to seek an order of eviction under Section 11(8) of the Act if he **RCR.166/17** 9 satisfies bona fide requirement for additional accommodation. Therefore we repel the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the respondent on the basis of the aforesaid decision. - 11.We do not find any kind of illegality or impropriety in any of the findings whereby the courts below concurrently passed an order of eviction under Section 11(8) of the Act. Hence, this revision petition will stand dismissed. - 12.Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the tenants are given six months' time from today to vacate the petition schedule building, on the following conditions. (1). The tenants shall file an affidavit, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the Execution Court or the Rent Control Court, as the case may be, expressing an undertaking that they will vacate the petition schedule shop room within six months from today. **RCR.166/17** 10 (2). The tenants shall deposit the entire arrears, if any, within one month, before the Execution Court or the Rent Control Court, as the case may be, and shall continue to pay the rent without default. (3). In the event of failure to comply with any of the conditions stated above, the time granted to vacate the premises will stand automatically vacated and the landlords will be at liberty to proceed with the execution of the eviction order. Sd/- **K.HARILAL Judge** **Sd/-** **A.M.BABU Judge** Mrcs/18.11 True Copy P.S.To Judge