R.C.Rev.Nos.326, 327, 329, 330, 332 & 340 of 2019

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 25[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 4TH CHAITHRA, 1944 R.C.REV.NO.326 OF 2019** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.04.2019 IN R.C.A.NO.132 OF 2016 OF THE RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY (ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE), IRINJALAKUDA AND THE ORDER DATED 27.01.2016 IN R.C.P.NO.15 OF 2007 OF THE RENT CONTROL COURT (MUNSIFF), IRINJALAKUDA** ## **REVISION PETITIONER/S:** ## **ANTO** **AGED 63 YEARS, S/O.VATTAKUZHI OUSEPH, NJELLOOR DESOM, KALLUR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR, PIN-680302.** **BY ADVS.** **K.R.ARUN KRISHNAN SRI.JITHIN BABU A SRI.ARUN SAMUEL** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 GEETHADEVI AGED 64 YEARS, W/O.LATE VENUGOPALAN, MOOTHEDATH (H), KOORKANCHERY VILLAGE DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK, PIN-680007.** **2 BALU VENUGOPAL, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.LATE VENUGOPALAN, MOOTHEDATH (H), KOORKANCHERY VILLAGE DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK, PIN-680007.** 2 R.C.Rev.Nos.326, 327, 329, 330, 332 & 340 of 2019 **3 VIDYA JAYADEEP, AGED 43 YEARS, D/O.LATE VENUGOPALAN, MOOTHEDATH (H), KOORKANCHERY VILLAGE DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK, PIN-680007.** **4 RISHI, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.LATE VENUGOPALAN, MOOTHEDATH (H), KOORKANCHERY VILLAGE DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK, PIN-680007.** **BY ADVS.** **K.P.SUDHEER SRI.KRISHNADAS P. NAIR SMT.K.L.SREEKALA J.RAMKUMAR** **THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARINGON 25.03.2022, ALONG WITH R.C.Rev.327/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** 3 R.C.Rev.Nos.326, 327, 329, 330, 332 & 340 of 2019 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 25[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 4TH CHAITHRA, 1944 R.C.REV.NO. 327 OF 2019** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.04.2019 IN R.C.A.NO.117 OF 2016 OF THE RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY (ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE), IRINJALAKUDA AND THE ORDER DATED 27.01.2016 IN R.C.P.NO.12 OF 2007 OF THE RENT CONTROL COURT (MUNSIFF), IRINJALAKUDA** ## **REVISION PETITIONER:** **RAPHEL,** **AGED 61 YEARS, S/O. EDAKULATHUR PORINCHU, VENDORE DESOM, AMBALLUR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR-680301.** **BY ADVS. K.R.ARUN KRISHNAN SRI.JITHIN BABU A SRI.ARUN SAMUEL** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 GEETHADEVI** **W/O. LATE VENUGOPALAN, MOOTHEDATH (H), KOORKANCHERY VILLAGE DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK, PIN-680007.** 4 R.C.Rev.Nos.326, 327, 329, 330, 332 & 340 of 2019 - **2 BALU VENUGOPAL,** **S/O. LATE VENUGOPALAN, MOOTHEDATH (H), KOORKANCHERY VILLAGE DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK, PIN-680007.** - **3 VIDYA JAYADEEP,** **D/O. LATE VENUGOPALAN, MOOTHEDATH (H), KOORKANCHERY VILLAGE DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK, PIN-680007.** - **4 RISHI** **S/O. LATE VENUGOPALAN, MOOTHEDATH (H), KOORKANCHERY VILLAGE DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK, PIN-680007.** **BY ADVS.** **K.P.SUDHEER SMT.K.L.SREEKALA SRI.HARIDAS P.NAIR SRI.M.A.VINOD SRI.M.RAJESH KUMAR J.RAMKUMAR** **THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 25.03.2022, ALONG WITH R.C.Rev.326/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** 5 R.C.Rev.Nos.326, 327, 329, 330, 332 & 340 of 2019 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 25[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 4TH CHAITHRA, 1944 R.C.REV.NO. 329 OF 2019** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.04.2019 IN R.C.A.NO.125 OF 2016 OF THE RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY (ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE), IRINJALAKUDA AND THE ORDER DATED 27.01.2016 IN R.C.P.NO.18 OF 2007 OF THE RENT CONTROL COURT (MUNSIFF), IRINJALAKUDA** ## **REVISION PETITIONER:** ## **DAVIS** **AGED 62 YEARS, S/O MANJALI ANTHONY, AMBALLUR VILLAGE, VENDORE DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR, PIN - 680 301.** **BY ADVS. JITHIN BABU A K.R.ARUN KRISHNAN ARUN SAMUEL** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 GEETHADEVI W/O LATE VENUGOPALAN, MOOTHEDATH (H), KOORKANCHERY VILLAGE DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK, PIN - 680 007.** 6 R.C.Rev.Nos.326, 327, 329, 330, 332 & 340 of 2019 - **2 BALU VENUGOPAL** **AGED 45 YEARS, S/O LATE VENUGOPALAN, MOOTHEDATH (H), KOORKANCHERY VILLAGE DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK, PIN - 680 007.** **3 VIDYA JAYADEEP AGED 43 YEARS, D/O LATE VENUGOPALAN, MOOTHEDATH (H), KOORKANCHERY VILLAGE DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK, PIN - 680 007.** **4 RISHI, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O LATE VENUGOPALAN, MOOTHEDATH (H), KOORKANCHERY VILLAGE DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK, PIN - 680 007.** **BY ADVS.** **K.P.SUDHEER SRI.KRISHNADAS P. NAIR SMT.K.L.SREEKALA J.RAMKUMAR** **THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 25.03.2022, ALONG WITH R.C.Rev.NO.326/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** 7 R.C.Rev.Nos.326, 327, 329, 330, 332 & 340 of 2019 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 25[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 4TH CHAITHRA, 1944 R.C.REV.NO.330 OF 2019** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.04.2019 IN R.C.A.NO.115 OF 2016 OF THE RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY (ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE), IRINJALAKUDA AND THE ORDER DATED 27.01.2016 IN R.C.P.NO.17 OF 2007 OF THE RENT CONTROL COURT (MUNSIFF), IRINJALAKUDA** ## **REVISION PETITIONER:** **FRANCIS, AGED 70 YEARS, S/O. KATTUMATH ITTOOP, CHENGALOOR VILLAGE, DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR, PIN - 680 312.** **BY ADVS.** **JITHIN BABU A SRI.ARUN SAMUEL** ## **RESPONDENTS:** ## **1 GEETHADEVI** **AGED 64 YEARS,W/O. LATE VENUGOPALAN, MOOTHEDATH (H), KOORKANCHERY VILLAGE DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK, PIN-680 007.** 8 R.C.Rev.Nos.326, 327, 329, 330, 332 & 340 of 2019 - **2 BALU VENUGOPAL,** **AGED 45 YEARS, S/O. LATE VENUGOPALAN, MOOTHEDATH (H), KOORKANCHERY VILLAGE DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK, PIN - 680 007.** **3 VIDYA JAYADEEP, AGED 43 YEARS, D/O. LATE VENUGOPALAN, MOOTHEDATH (H), KOORKANCHERY VILLAGE DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK, PIN - 680 007.** - **4 RISHI** **AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. LATE VENUGOPALAN, MOOTHEDATH (H), KOORKANCHERY VILLAGE DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK, PIN - 680 007.** **BY ADVS. KRISHNADAS P.NAIR(CAVEATOR) SRI.KRISHNADAS P. NAIR K.P.SUDHEER SMT.K.L.SREEKALA J.RAMKUMAR** **THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 25.03.2022, ALONG WITH R.C.Rev.NO.326/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** 9 R.C.Rev.Nos.326, 327, 329, 330, 332 & 340 of 2019 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 25[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 4TH CHAITHRA, 1944 R.C.REV.NO.332 OF 2019** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.04.2019 IN R.C.A.NO.116 OF 2016 OF THE RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY (ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE), IRINJALAKUDA AND THE ORDER DATED 27.01.2016 IN R.C.P.NO.21 OF 2007 OF THE RENT CONTROL COURT (MUNSIFF), IRINJALAKUDA** ## **REVISION PETITIONER:** **HARIDAS AGED 49 YEARS, S/O. CHARTHAYI KUMARAN, AMBALLUR VILLAGE, MANNAMPETTA DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR, PIN-680 301.** **BY ADVS. JITHIN BABU A SRI.ARUN SAMUEL** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 GEETHADEVI AGED 64 YEARS, W/O. LATE VENUGOPALAN, MOOTHEDATH (H), KOORKANCHERRY VILLAGE DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK, PIN - 680 007.** 10 R.C.Rev.Nos.326, 327, 329, 330, 332 & 340 of 2019 **2 BALU VENUGOPAL, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O. LATE VENUGOPALAN, MOOTHEDATH (H), KOORKANCHERRY VILLAGE DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK, PIN - 680 007.** **3 VIDYA JAYADEEP, AGED 43 YEARS, D/O. LATE VENUGOPALAN, MOOTHEDATH (H), KOORKANCHERRY VILLAGE DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK, PIN - 680 007.** - **4 RISHI** **AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. LATE VENUGOPALAN, MOOTHEDATH (H), KOORKANCHERRY VILLAGE DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK, PIN - 680 007.** **BY ADVS.** **K.P.SUDHEER SRI.KRISHNADAS P. NAIR SMT.K.L.SREEKALA** **J.RAMKUMAR** **THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 25.03.2022, ALONG WITH R.C.Rev.NO.326/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** 11 R.C.Rev.Nos.326, 327, 329, 330, 332 & 340 of 2019 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 25[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 4TH CHAITHRA, 1944 R.C.REV.NO.340 OF 2019** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.04.2019 IN R.C.A.NO.131 OF 2016 OF THE RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY (ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE), IRINJALAKUDA AND THE ORDER DATED 27.01.2016 IN R.C.P.NO.13 OF 2007 OF THE RENT CONTROL COURT (MUNSIFF), IRINJALAKUDA** ## **REVISION PETITIONERS:** **1 ELIA AGED 80 YEARS, W/O LATE OUSEPH, ARIMBOOR PARAMBAN (H), AMBALLUR VILLAGE, VARAKKARA DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, PIN-680 301.** - **2 ANTONY, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O LATE OUSEPH, ARIMBOOR PARAMBAN (H), AMBALLUR VILLAGE, VARAKKARA DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, PIN-680 301.** - **3 JOY, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O LATE OUSEPH, ARIMBOOR PARAMBAN (H), AMBALLUR VILLAGE, VARAKKARA DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, PIN-680 301.** - **4 PAUL, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O LATE OUSEPH, ARIMBOOR PARAMBAN (H), AMBALLUR VILLAGE, VARAKKARA DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, PIN-680 301.** 12 R.C.Rev.Nos.326, 327, 329, 330, 332 & 340 of 2019 - **5 WILSON,** **AGED 45 YEARS, S/O LATE OUSEPH, ARIMBOOR PARAMBAN (H), AMBALLUR VILLAGE, VARAKKARA DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, PIN-680 301.** **BY ADVS.** **K.R.ARUN KRISHNAN JITHIN BABU A ARUN SAMUEL** **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 GEETHADEVI AGED 64 YEARS, W/O LATE VENUGOPALAN, MOOTHEDATH (H) KOORKANCHERY VILLAGE DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK, PIN-680 007.** - **2 BALU VENUGOPAL, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O LATE VENUGOPLAN, MOOTHEDATH (H), KOORKANCHERY VILLAGE DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK, PIN-680 007.** - **3 VIDYA JAYADEEP, AGED 43 YEARS, D/O LATE VENUGOPALAN, MOOTHEDATH (H), KOORKANCHERY VILLAGE DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK, PIN-680 007.** - **4 RISHI, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O LATE VENUGOPALAN, MOOTHEDATH (H), KOORKANCHERY VILLAGE DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK, PIN-680 007.** **BY ADVS. KRISHNADAS P. NAIR (CAVEATOR) SRI.KRISHNADAS P. NAIR** - **K.P.SUDHEER J.RAMKUMAR** 13 R.C.Rev.Nos.326, 327, 329, 330, 332 & 340 of 2019 **THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 25.03.2022, ALONG WITH R.C.Rev.NO.326/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** 14 R.C.Rev.Nos.326, 327, 329, 330, 332 & 340 of 2019 ## **O R D E R** ## Ajithkumar, J. Respondents are the landlords. The petitioners are the tenants in different rooms in a building belonging to the respondents. The present respondents are the legal representatives of the original landlord, who filed the rent control petitions before the Rent Control Court (Munsiff), Irinjalakuda. Pending the proceedings, the original landlord died, and the present respondents came on record. Rent control petitions upon which these revisions under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, have arisen along with three other rent control petitions, were filed by the original landlord. All the petitions were allowed under Section 11(3) of the Act. Although eviction was sought under Section 11(2)(b) and 11(4)(iv) of the Act also, those grounds do not now survive for consideration. In a connected matter, namely, R.C.P.No.3 of 2008, there was no appeal and the order of eviction has become final. In other two matters, namely, R.C.P.Nos.16 and 22 of 2007 delivery was effected. 15 R.C.Rev.Nos.326, 327, 329, 330, 332 & 340 of 2019 Present petitioners preferred appeal under Section 18(1)(b) of the Act before the Rent Control Appellate (Additional District Judge), Irinjalakuda. The Appellate Authority dismissed all the six appeals as per a common judgment dated 08.04.2019. Hece, these revision petitions are filed. 2. The revision petitions were admitted to file and ordered notice to the respondents. Execution of the orders of eviction stands stayed. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and and also the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 4. The 5[th] respondent is the son of the original landlord. He studied hotel management and has been working in a hotel. He intends to construct a building after demolishing the petition schedule shop rooms and also the other rooms in the building for starting a hotel. The respondents are not in possession of any other building or land suitable for the purpose. They have already obtained approved plan and licence for construction of the building. In the circumstances, 16 R.C.Rev.Nos.326, 327, 329, 330, 332 & 340 of 2019 they sought eviction of the petitioners from the respective petition schedule shop rooms. 5. All the petitioners raised a common contention that the need urged by the respondents is not bona fide. It is their contention that the 5[th] respondent is not qualified as he claimed and he has no experience or ability to conduct a hotel. It is further alleged that their intention is to sell the building and the property after avoiding the tenants. As regards the suitability of the premises for conducting a hotel, they asserted that already, there is a bar attached hotel just about 15 meters away, and therefore, it is not feasible to start a hotel in the petition schedule premises. Some of the tenants are not proceeded against and that shows lack of bona fides of the respondents. They are in possession of other buildings, which can be utilised for the proposed need. All the tenants claimed benefit of the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act as well. 6. The Rent Control Court examined PWs.1 to 3 and RWs.1 to 7. The exhibits marked are A1 to A38, B1 to B30 17 R.C.Rev.Nos.326, 327, 329, 330, 332 & 340 of 2019 and X1 to X4. After considering the said evidence in detail, the Rent Control Court concluded that the need urged was bona fide, the respondents are not in possession of any other building or land, which can be utilised for the projected purpose and none of the petitioners is entitled to get the benefit of second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. Those findings were assailed before the Appellate Authority. While considering the respective appeals, the Appellate Authority has considered the evidence in detail. As regards the benefit under the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act also, the Appellate Authority considered the contentions and the evidence in support thereof, of each of the petitioners. After such exhaustive consideration, the Appellate Authority concurred with the findings of the Rent Control Court. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that evidence was insufficient to find that the need urged by the respondents is a bona fide one. The main reasons pointed out are that the 5[th] respondent does not have enough experience or ability to put up such a big building and 18 R.C.Rev.Nos.326, 327, 329, 330, 332 & 340 of 2019 to conduct a hotel and the fact that one vacant room was was let out during the pendency of the proceedings and no steps for eviction of two of the tenants in the same building was taken. 8. Evidence of PW1, the landlord, is placed on reliance by the respondents to establish the need. PW1 deposed in detail regarding the reasons why eviction was sought on the ground of bona fide need. His son, the 5[th] respondent is qualified by acquiring a certificate in hotel management and acquired enough experience by working in different hotels. He has to have a venture of his own for prospects in his life. Therefore, PW1 decided to take steps for eviction of the respondents in the different rooms in the building and after demolishing the building, put up a new hotel building for the 5[th] respondent, who is his dependent, to conduct a hotel. 9. Ext.A33 is the certificate showing qualification of the 5[th] respondent in hotel management. Exts.A34 and A34(a) are his experience certificates. In the light of the oral testimony of PW1 and the said documents, contention raised 19 R.C.Rev.Nos.326, 327, 329, 330, 332 & 340 of 2019 by some of the petitioners that the 5[th] respondent is not actually qualified and he did not undergo any course in hotel management do not sustain. Of course, the 5[th] respondent was not examined in the court as a witness. When his father deposed in court regarding the qualification, ability and capacity of his son, which is corroborated by Exts.A33 and 34, there need not be any doubt regarding the said aspects. Moreover, respondents 3, 5 and 7 admitted before the court a few of the assertions made by the respondents. RW3 admitted that the son of his landlord, the 5[th] president, was a qualified person. RW5 admitted that the 5[th] respondent has been working in a hotel at Palakkkad. RW7 admitted that though qualified, the 5[th] respondent did not have any permanent employment. Those admissions certainly support the case of the respondents. 10. The petitioners alleged that having let out one of the rooms available vacant, the respondents cannot claim eviction of the petitioners saying that they want to reconstruct the building to start a hotel. Another aspect pointed out is 20 R.C.Rev.Nos.326, 327, 329, 330, 332 & 340 of 2019 that the respondents did not take steps to evict two of the tenants. PW1 deposed the reasons for doing so. A small room was let out after initiation of the proceedings, which was in 2007. From Ext.A36, report submitted by PW2, an Advocate Commissioner, the nature of the said room is evident. It is a small room The tenant in that room as well as two other tenants against whom eviction proceedings were not initiated undertook to vacate the rooms at any time on demand, PW1 asserted. Eviction of a tenant need not always be by filing a petition under Section 11 of the Act. A tenant can voluntarily surrender as well. When PW1 is confident that those tenants would definitely surrender vacant possession of the respective rooms as and when required, there need not be any aspersion on the bona fides of the respondents. After considering all those aspects, the Rent Control Court as well as the Appellate Authority, came to the conclusion that the need urged was bona fide. 11. Some of the petitioners raised a contention that since another hotel is functioning just 15 meters away from 21 R.C.Rev.Nos.326, 327, 329, 330, 332 & 340 of 2019 the petition schedule shop rooms, it is not feasible or advisable to start another hotel in the land where the petition schedule shop rooms are situated. Suitability of the building for the purpose of the venture intended to be started by the respondents is a matter of their wisdom. When the respondents-landlords say that they want to start a hotel in their property, the tenants shall have no say in it. It is for the respondents to decide on the matter and even the court's opinion has no role in it. In the circumstances, the said contention of the petitioners cannot be held good. 12. 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 22 R.C.Rev.Nos.326, 327, 329, 330, 332 & 340 of 2019 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 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. 13. 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 23 R.C.Rev.Nos.326, 327, 329, 330, 332 & 340 of 2019 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 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. 14. 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 24 R.C.Rev.Nos.326, 327, 329, 330, 332 & 340 of 2019 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 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. 15. Viewed in the light of the principles of law in the above decisions, we are of the view that the evidence let in by the respondents had sufficiently proved that the 5th respondent really has a plan to construct a hotel building and 25 R.C.Rev.Nos.326, 327, 329, 330, 332 & 340 of 2019 to start a hotel, he has ability and financial capacity for the same. 16. The respondents produced Ext.A5 in order to prove that they have already taken steps for construction of a hotel building. Ext.X1 is the official copy of Ext.A5, which was brought on record from the custody of the local authority. These documents would show that the respondents already had availed permission to construct a building in the land where the petition schedule shop rooms are situated. The petitioners raised a contention that the said land, which abuts the National Highway, cannot be used for such a construction for the reason that no permanent construction would be permitted in such a proximity to the National Highway. The said contention does not stand in the light of Ext.X1 which would evince that a permit and licence for the construction has already been granted by the competent authority. Therefore there would not be any difficulty for the respondents to carry out the construction in the property where the rooms in question are situated. Hence, the said 26 R.C.Rev.Nos.326, 327, 329, 330, 332 & 340 of 2019 contention is also devoid of any merit. 17. The petitioners set forth a contention that the respondents have other buildings and landed property for construction of a hotel building. There is no evidence in support of that contention. Therefore, the first proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act can have no application. 18. All the tenants-petitioners claimed benefit of the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act by raising more or less the same contentions. Their line of plea is that their only income for livelihood is from the business in the respective petition schedule shop rooms and no other building or room is available in the locality to avail on rent. Evidence of RWs.1 to 7 and a few documents marked on their side were placed reliance by the petitioners in that regard. 19. 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 27 R.C.Rev.Nos.326, 327, 329, 330, 332 & 340 of 2019 suitable building available in the locality for such person to carry on such trade or business. A Full Bench of this Court in **Francis v. Sreedevi Varassiar [2003 (2) KLT 230]** held that it is for the tenant to prove both the limbs of the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act and that the tenant cannot insist that alternative accommodation should be similar to that of the tenanted premises in terms of the rate of rent and convenience. 20. The oral evidence tendered by the respective tenants was considered by the courts below. Business being conducted by the petitioners in the respective shop rooms are small scale business like workshops, welding shop, lathe, tyre resoling unit, spare parts business, etc. None of those witnesses had produced any document evidencing the income they have been deriving from the respective businesses and such income is the source of their livelihood. The findings of the courts below that the plea has not been proved is on the basis of sufficient evidence. 28 R.C.Rev.Nos.326, 327, 329, 330, 332 & 340 of 2019 21. Regarding the second limb of the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act, despite it being their burden to prove the same, the respondents did not succeed to bring in sufficient evidence to prove that fact. PW2, an Advocate Commissioner, stated in court that several vacant rooms are available in the locality, which can be taken on rent. Ext.A36 is the report submitted by PW2. Although the availability of such rooms is brought in evidence, the petitioners did not venture to show that such rooms are not really available or vacant. They did not take out a commission to collect data with respect to that aspect. Apart from their oral testimony, there is nothing on record to show either that the vacant rooms pointed out are not available for taking on rent or that no rooms are actually available, which can be taken on rent by them. In the said circumstances, we are of the view that the evidence regarding the second limb of the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act is too scanty to prove the same. We therefore find no reason to interfere with the finding of the courts below in that regard. 29 R.C.Rev.Nos.326, 327, 329, 330, 332 & 340 of 2019 ## 22. In **Rukmini Amma Saradamma v. Kallyani** **Sulochana [(1993) 1 SCC 499]** , the scope of revisional powers of the High Court under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 came up for consideration before the Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court. While considering whether the High Court could have reappreciated entire evidence, the Apex Court held that, even the wider language of Section 20 of the Act cannot enable the High Court to act as a first or a second court of appeal. Otherwise, the distinction between appellate and revisional jurisdiction will get obliterated. Hence, the High Court was not right in reappreciating the entire evidence both oral or documentary in the light of the Commissioner's report. The High Court had travelled far beyond the revisional jurisdiction. Even by the presence of ‘ ’ - the word propriety it cannot mean that there could be a re appreciation of evidence. Of course, the revisional court can come to a different conclusion but not on a re-appreciation of evidence; on the contrary, by confining itself to legality, regularity and propriety of the order impugned before it. 30 R.C.Rev.Nos.326, 327, 329, 330, 332 & 340 of 2019 ## 23. In **Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited** **v. Dilbahar Singh [(2014) 9 SCC 78]** a Five-Judge Bench of the Apex Court considered the revisional powers of the High Court under Rent Acts operating in different States. After referring to the law laid down in **Rukmini Amma Saradamma** the Apex Court reiterated that even the wider language of Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 does not enable the High Court to act as a first or a second court of appeal. The Constitution Bench agreed with the view of the Three-Judge Bench in **Rukmini Amma Saradamma** that the word ‘propriety’ does not confer power upon the High Court to re-appreciate evidence to come to a different conclusion, but its consideration of evidence is confined to find out legality, regularity and propriety of the order impugned before it. 24. In **Thankamony Amma v. Omana Amma [AIR 2019 SC 3803 : 2019 (4) KHC 412]** after considering the matter in the backdrop of law laid down in **Rukmini Amma Saradamma** , **Ubaiba** and **Dilbahar Singh (supra)** the Apex 31 R.C.Rev.Nos.326, 327, 329, 330, 332 & 340 of 2019 Court held that when the findings rendered by the courts below were well supported by evidence on record and could not be said to be perverse in any way, the High Court could - not re appreciate the evidence and interfere with the concurrent findings by the courts below while exercising revisional jurisdiction. 25. Viewed in the light of the aforesaid decisions, we find no reason to interfere with the findings in the judgment of the Appellate Authority and the order of the Rent Control Court, on the ground of illegality, irregularity or impropriety. Hence these Revision Petitions fail. We, accordingly, dismiss all the Revision Petitions. 26. The learned counsel for the petitioners has made a request to afford ten month's time to each of the petitioners for vacating the premises pointing out the difficulty to find out alternative room and making necessary arrangements for shifting their business. The learned counsel for the respondents is agreeable to grant six months’ time. 27. Having considered all the aspects, we deem it 32 R.C.Rev.Nos.326, 327, 329, 330, 332 & 340 of 2019 appropriate to grant seven months’ time to surrender vacant possession of the petition schedule shop rooms, subject to the following conditions: - (i) The respondents-tenants in the Rent Control Petitions shall file an affidavits before the Rent Control Court or the Execution Court, as the case may be, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, expressing an unconditional undertaking that they will surrender vacant possession of the petition schedule shop rooms to the petitioners-landlords within seven months from the date of this order and that, they shall not induct third parties into possession of the petition schedule shop rooms and further they shall conduct any business in the petition schedule shop rooms only on the strength of a valid licence/permission/ consent issued by the local authority/statutory authorities; - (ii) The respondents-tenants in the Rent Control Petitions shall deposit the entire arrears of rent as on date, if any, before the Rent Control Court or the Execution Court, as the case may be, within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, and shall continue to pay rent for every succeeding months, without any default; - (iii) Needless to say, in the event of the respondents-tenants 33 R.C.Rev.Nos.326, 327, 329, 330, 332 & 340 of 2019 in the Rent Control Petitions 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 rooms will stand cancelled automatically and the petitioners-landlords will be at liberty to proceed with the execution of the order of eviction. ## **Sd/-** **ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE** **Sd/P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE** dkr