R.C.Rev.Nos.376 & 377 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 19[TH] DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 28TH SRAVANA, 1944 R.C.REV.NO. 376 OF 2019** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 06.07.2019 IN R.C.A.NO.190 OF 2011 OF THE RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY (I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE), THRISSUR AND THE EEORDER DATED 22.07.2011 IN R.C.P.NO.40 OF 2009 OF THE RENT CONTROL COURT (MUNSIFF),** ## **THRISSUR** ## **REVISION PETITIONER:** ## **DR.ABRAHAM MOHAN,** **AGED 61 YEARS, S/O.ABRAHAM CHERIYAN, HOMEO HOUSE, SILVER SAND BUILDING, M.G.ROAD, WEST FORT, THRISSUR.** **BY ADVS.** **SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI (SR.) SMT SUMATHI DANDAPANI (SR) SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI** ## **RESPONDENTS:** ## **1 RAVEENDRAN** **S/O.KOLLARA AYYAPPANKUTTY, VARIYAM LANE, PATTURAIKKAL DESOM, THRISSUR VILLAGE AND TALUK-680001.** - **2 MEERA** **W/O.KOLLARA RAVEENDRAN, VARIYAM LANE, PATTURAIKKAL DESOM, THRISSUR VILLAGE AND TALUK-680001.** 2 ## R.C.Rev.Nos.376 & 377 of 2019 **3 SREEJITH, S/O.KOLLARA RAVEENDRAN, VARIYAM LANE, PATTURAIKKAL DESOM, THRISSUR VILLAGE AND TALUK-680001.** **4 JIJITH, S/O.KOLLARA RAVEENDRAN, VARIYAM LANE, PATTURAIKKAL DESOM, THRISSUR VILLAGE AND TALUK-680001.** **BY ADVS. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SHRI.RIYAS C.S.** **THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 19.08.2022, ALONG WITH R.C.Rev.NO.377 OF 2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** 3 R.C.Rev.Nos.376 & 377 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 19[TH] DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 28TH SRAVANA, 1944** ## **R.C.REV.NO. 377 OF 2019** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 06.07.2019 IN R.C.A.NO.193 OF 2011 OF THE RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY (I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE), THRISSUR AND THE EEORDER DATED 22.07.2011 IN R.C.P.NO.49 OF 2009 OF THE RENT CONTROL COURT (MUNSIFF), THRISSUR** ## **REVISION PETITIONER:** **PRINCY FRANCIS** **AGED 55 YEARS, W/O. CHITTILAPPILLY KUNJAPPU FRANCIS, P.O. MARATHAKKARA, THRISSUR-680 618.** **BY ADVS.** **K.P.DANDAPANI (SR.) SMT SUMATHI DANDAPANI (SR) SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI SRI.ROY THOMAS (MUVATTUPUZHA)** ## **RESPONDENTS:** ## **1 RAVEENDRAN** **S/O. KOLLARA AYYAPPAKUTTY, VARIYAM LANE, PATTURAIKKAL DESOM, THRISSUR VILLAGE AND TALUK-680 001.** - **2 MEERA** **W/O. KOLLARA RAVEENDRAN, VARIYAM LANE, PATTURAIKKAL DESOM,** 4 R.C.Rev.Nos.376 & 377 of 2019 **THRISSUR VILLAGE AND TALUK-680 001.** - **3 SREEJITH S/O. KOLLARA RAVEENDRAN, VARIYAM LANE, PATTURAIKKAL DESOM, THRISSUR VILLAGE AND TALUK-680 001.** - **4 JIJITH** **S/O. KOLLARA RAVEENDRAN, VARIYAM LANE, PATTURAIKKAL DESOM, THRISSUR VILLAGE AND TALUK-680 001.** **BY ADVS.** **SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SHRI.RIYAS C.S.** **THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 19.08.2022, ALONG WITH R.C.Rev.NO.376 OF 2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** 5 R.C.Rev.Nos.376 & 377 of 2019 ## **O R D E R** ## Ajithkumar, J. The tenants are the revision petitioners. The respondents are the landlords. They are the owners of a fourstoried building having several rooms. The petitioners are in occupation of one room each. The respondents filed twenty RC(OP)s for eviction of the respective tenants. RC(OP) No.40 of 2009 was filed against the petitioner in R.C.Rev.No.376 of 2019 and RC(OP) No.49 of 2009 was filed against the petitioner in R.C.Rev.No.377 of 2019, before the Rent Control Court (Munsiff), Thrissur, seeking eviction under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. As per a common order dated 22.07.2011 eviction was ordered. Twelve tenants, including the petitioners filed appeals before the Rent Control Appellate Authority (I Additional District Judge), Thrissur under Section 18(1)(b) of the Act. The appeals were dismissed. Hence, the petitioners have filed these revision petitions. 6 R.C.Rev.Nos.376 & 377 of 2019 2. On 26.09.2019, R.C.Rev.No.376 of 2019 was admitted to file. On 27.09.2019, R.C.Rev.No.377 of 2019 was admitted. In both cases, execution of the order of eviction was stayed initially for a period of three months. The interim order was extended from time to time and is still in force. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 4. The need urged by the respondents is that the 4[th] respondent who was a final year student of MBBS wants to start a clinic making use of all the rooms in the four-storied building belonging to them. The petitioners as also the other tenants refuted the bona fides of the need urged by the respondents by contending that the 4[th] respondent has no real intention to start such a clinic and that the building is not convenient for that purpose. The petitioners claimed the benefit of the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act as well. 5. The Rent Control Court tried RC(OP) Nos.40 and 49 of 2009 along with the other eighteen RC(OP)s. jointly. PWs.1 7 R.C.Rev.Nos.376 & 377 of 2019 to 3 were examined and Exts.A1 to A64 were marked on the side of the respondents. RWs.1 to 16 were examined and Exts.B1 to B32 were marked on the side of the tenants. CW1, the Commissioner, was also examined. Her report was marked as Exts.C1 and C2. After hearing both sides, the Rent Control Court held that the need urged by the respondents is bona fide and the respondents herein were not entitled to the benefit of the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. Accordingly, eviction was ordered. The Appellate Authority did not interfere with the order of the Rent Control Court. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that the building, although has several rooms, is not suitable to accommodate a hospital or a clinic. Considering the area where it is situated and the nature of construction, it is not possible to convert it into a hospital or a clinic. It was further contended that the respondents are already in occupation of several rooms in the building and therefore, eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act could not be entertained. Rather, the respondents ought to have resorted to Section 11(8) of the Act. 8 R.C.Rev.Nos.376 & 377 of 2019 7. As regards the contention that the appropriate provision is Section 11(8) of the Act, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended that the rooms other than the tenanted premises are lying vacant. Those rooms are in possession of the respondents, but not in their occupation. In such circumstances, they cannot resort to Section 11(8) of the Act, to get eviction of the tenants. Section 11(8) of the Act enables a landlord to seek eviction of the tenant if the landlord is in occupation of a part of the building. Occupation and possession are different. Here, a few rooms in the building are lying vacant and the same, therefore, are in the possession of the landlords. That does not mean that they are in occupation of the said rooms, so as to attract the provisions of Section 11(8) of the Act. 8. In **Hassan Koya K. v. James George and others [2019 (4) KLJ 74]** a Division Bench of this Court held that, under the provisions of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, the distinction maintained by the legislature between Section 11(3) and Section 11(8) is clear. The test to 9 R.C.Rev.Nos.376 & 377 of 2019 be applied in a proceeding for eviction under Section 11(8) or Section 11(3), as the case may be, for distinguishing these two grounds of eviction is to ascertain whether landlord and tenant are stated to be occupying different portions of the same building owned by the landlord or whether the tenant is stated to be occupying the whole building of the landlord. If the landlord is in occupation of a portion of his building and asks for eviction of the portion let to his tenant urging the need for additional accommodation for personal use, it would then be a case of eviction falling under Section 11(8). On the other hand, if the tenant is put in occupation of the entire building owned by the landlord who has no part of the structure in his custody, it is then a case brought for eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act alone, provided other conditions for eviction are also present. Legally, the grounds of eviction under Section 11(3) and Section 11(8) are fundamentally different and considered therefore as mutually exclusive. The distinction emerging between these two grounds has been discussed in **S.R. Sabu v. T.K. Vasudevan** 10 R.C.Rev.Nos.376 & 377 of 2019 ## **[(2001) 8 SCC 110]** and **Indian Saree House and others** ## **v. Radhalakshmy and others [2006 (3) KLT 129]** . 9. Here, the respondents are not in occupation of any portion of the building. In the light of the proposition of law referred to above, the irresistible conclusion is that this is a case falling under Section 11(3) of the Act. 10. In order to prove the need urged by the respondents, they rely on the oral testimony of PWs.1 to 3. PW1 is the 4[th] respondent. PW2 is the 1st respondent. PW3 is an Engineer by profession. He has an architecture firm. PW1 deposed that he has graduated in medicine from Tribhuvan University, Kathmandu, and he proposes to start a clinic in the building in question. PW3 has given a detailed sketch regarding the plan of converting the building into a clinic. In his view the building, which has a column framework, is suitable for conversion to accommodate a hospital. On the basis of the said evidence, it was urged that the need projected by the respondents has been sufficiently proved to be genuine 11 R.C.Rev.Nos.376 & 377 of 2019 11. As pointed out above, PW1, the 4[th] respondent has deposed regarding the proposal to start a clinic in the building to which the petition schedule rooms form a part. He has already graduated, although at the time of filing the petitions, he was only a student. A graduate in Medicine proposes to start a clinic in his own building. Going by the oral testimonies of PWs.1 and 2, their plan is to carry out necessary modifications to the building, in order to suit it for functioning as a hospital/clinic. PW3, the Architect, deposed that the building can conveniently be converted to suit the requirements of a hospital. 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 12 R.C.Rev.Nos.376 & 377 of 2019 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 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 13 R.C.Rev.Nos.376 & 377 of 2019 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 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 14 R.C.Rev.Nos.376 & 377 of 2019 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 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. There is nothing in evidence to doubt the intention of the respondents in demanding eviction of the petitioners from the respective petition schedule shop rooms. The learned 15 R.C.Rev.Nos.376 & 377 of 2019 counsel appearing for the petitioners would concede that all the other RC(OP)s and respective appeals have been finally decided, resulting in eviction of the respective tenants. Considering the aforesaid facts in the light of the law laid down in the decisions referred to above, we are of the view that the need urged by the respondents is bona fide. Hence, we find no reason to interfere with the concurrent finding rendered by the courts below. 16. The petitioners have no contention that respondents are in possession of any other building suitable for their purpose. They, however, claimed the benefit of the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. 17. 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. A Full Bench of this Court in 16 R.C.Rev.Nos.376 & 377 of 2019 **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. 18. This view regarding the burden of proof has been approved by the Apex Court in **Kunhamma @ Lakshmi Ammas Children and another v. Akkali Purushothaman and others [(2007) 11 SCC 181],** where it was observed, “From a perusal of the judgment of the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court reported in **Francis v. Sreedevi Varassiar [2003 (2) KLT 230]** we observe that the onus lies on the tenant to prove that he was dependent on the income derived from the business being carried on from the demised premises and that there was no other suitable building to which he could shift his business.” 19. RW3 is the husband of the petitioner in R.C.Rev.No.377 of 2019. She is conducting a fancy shop 17 R.C.Rev.Nos.376 & 377 of 2019 under the name and style “Matha Stores”. RW3 has deposed that the income derived from the business in the petition schedule shop room is the sole source of the livelihood of the petitioner and her family. Besides that oral version, there is no document or independent evidence. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner in R.C.Rev.No.377 of 2019 can depend only on the income derived from the business in the petition schedule shop room for her livelihood. 20. RW6 is the petitioner in R.C.Rev.No.376 of 2019. He is conducting a homeo clinic in the petition schedule shop room. He has admitted during cross-examination that apart from the consultation at the said room, he has been conducting two clinics; one at Malappuram and another at Ernakulam. He further stated that he used to attend patients at his clinic in the petition schedule shop room only on Saturdays. The said version would show that the income derived from his practice at the petition schedule shop room is not the sole source of his livelihood. 21. Regarding the non-availability of alternative 18 R.C.Rev.Nos.376 & 377 of 2019 building for shifting the business of the respective petitioners, no worthwhile evidence has been let in. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the petitioners are not entitled to get the protection under the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. 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 re-appreciated 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 re-appreciating the entire evidence both oral or documentary in the light of the Commissioner's report. The High Court had travelled far beyond the revisional 19 R.C.Rev.Nos.376 & 377 of 2019 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. 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 20 R.C.Rev.Nos.376 & 377 of 2019 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 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 this Revision Petition fails. We, accordingly, dismiss it. 26. The learned counsel for the petitioners has made a request to afford six months’ time for vacating the premises 21 R.C.Rev.Nos.376 & 377 of 2019 pointing out the difficulty in finding out another room and making necessary arrangements for shifting the business. The learned counsel for the respondents is agreeable to grant the same. 27. Having considered all the aspects, we deem it appropriate to grant six 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 affidavit 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 six 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, 22 R.C.Rev.Nos.376 & 377 of 2019 before the Rent Control Court or the Execution Court, as the case may be, within four weeks 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 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