High Court of KeralaDivision Bench2012-02-14Revision petition dismissed; eviction order con...

SADASIVAN PILLAI AMBADIVEETTIL v. SARAMMA THOMAS PUTHEN PEEDIKAYIL

Case / Petition Number:RCRev. No. 52 of 2012 (C)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Pius C. Kuriakose
A. V. Ramakrishna Pillai
Judgment Date: 2012-02-14
Court Decision / Holding: Revision petition dismissed; eviction order confirmed. The court directed that, despite the dismissal, notice be issued to the respondent to determine the extent of time to surrender the premises and how the ₹1,15,000 security money already paid can be repaid to the revision petitioner. Interim stay for two months was also considered in the proceedings.
Final Disposition: Revision petition dismissed; eviction order confirmed; time to surrender and repayment of security to be decided; urgent notice issued for these points.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

SADASIVAN PILLAI AMBADIVEETTIL, MAZHUKEER KEEZHMURI THIRUVANVANDOOR VILLAGE

Respondents

SARAMMA THOMAS PUTHEN PEEDIKAYIL, KEEZHCHERMEL MURI CHENGANNUR VILLAGE-689121

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• P. V. Chandramohan

Case Synopsis & Summary

This High Court revision arises from an eviction order under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Rent Control Act, challenged by the tenant. The Rent Control Court and the Rent Control Appellate Authority had held the landlady not entitled to eviction under sub-section 3, but this Court, in earlier proceedings, reversed those findings and held the landlady’s need to be bona fide, remanding for explicit findings on the tenant’s eligibility for the second proviso to Section 11(3). The impugned judgment of the Appellate Authority eventually held that the tenant, a pensioner, is not entitled to the second proviso protection, and eviction was ordered on that basis. The Division Bench then examined the record, including the Full Bench view in Francis v. Sreedevi Varassiar (2003(2) KLT 230) and the Supreme Court decision in Kunhamma v. Akkali Purushothaman (2007(3) KLT 99), which collectively emphasize that the burden lies on the tenant to prove both ingredients of the second proviso and that the tenant must show that tenancy income constitutes his principal livelihood. The Court also notes the relevance of an earlier order in RCR No.360/10, which guided the finality of the bona fide need finding. Ultimately, the court held there was no illegality in the Appellate Authority’s findings, and revision petition is dismissed with directions that eviction stand, while time to surrender and repayment of security deposited (₹1,15,000) to the tenant be decided by the landlord, with urgent notice issued for these points.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 11(3)Second proviso to Section 11(3)Section 20

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Bona fide need
Burden of proof on the tenant to satisfy the second proviso to Section 11(3)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The revision petitioner argued that the finding of bona fide need by the earlier judgments is contrary to the evidence on record and that the tenant should be considered for protection under the second proviso to sub Section 3 of Section 11. Counsel contended that the tenant relies on multiple income sources, including business income, to livelihood, and argued that the Appellate Authority’s determinations regarding the second proviso were illegal and improper and should be vacated.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents did not present explicit arguments in the text; the landlady’s position is reflected in the court’s discussion that the need for eviction is bona fide and the tenant does not qualify for the second proviso protection, supporting eviction based on the evidence and statutory provisions.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Francis v. Sreedevi Varassiar	2003(2) KLT 230	Positive	Full Bench precedent cited to support the notion that bona fide need is a central consideration and that the court’s burden on the tenant to satisfy the second proviso is recognized.
Kunhamma v. Akkali Purushothaman	2007(3) KLT 99	Positive	Supreme Court decision cited to reinforce the view that the tenant bears the burden to prove both ingredients of the second proviso to Section 11(3).
RCR No.360/10	RCR 360/10	Mentioned Only	Referenced as the Court’s earlier order that guided finality of the bona fide need finding; not analyzed as a precedent within this judgment.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against SADASIVAN PILLAI AMBADIVEETTIL v. SARAMMA THOMAS PUTHEN PEEDIKAYIL and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012/25TH MAGHA 1933 RCRev..No. 52 of 2012 (C) -------------------------------RCA.3/2007 of ADDL. RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, MAVELIKKARA RCP.4/2006 of RENT CONTROL COURT,CHENGANNUR ------------------------- REVISION PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------------------- SADASIVAN PILLAI AMBADIVEETTIL, MAZHUKEER KEEZHMURI THIRUVANVANDOOR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.CHANDRA MOHAN RESPONDENT(S)/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------- SARAMMA THOMAS PUTHEN PEEDIKAYIL, KEEZHCHERMEL MURI CHENGANNUR VILLAGE-689121. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-02-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & A. V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JJ. -----------------------------------------------R. C. R No.52 of 2012 -----------------------------------------------Dated this the 14[th] day of February, 2012 ## **ORDER** ## _Pius C. Kuriakose, J_ The tenant challenges in this revision the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the order of eviction passed on the ground under sub Section 3 of Section 11. This case had a chequered career. The Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority concurrently held that the landlady is not entitled for an order of eviction under sub Section 3 of Section 11. The above decision was taken on the basis of a finding that the need projected by the landlady was not bona fide. However, considering the revision filed by the landlady this Court reversed the findings of the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority and found that the need is bona fide. However, as findings had not been entered in the context of the tenant's eligibility for R. C. R No.52 of 2012 -2- the protection of the second proviso this Court remanded the RCA to the Rent Control Appellate Authority for entering findings regarding the tenant's eligibility for the protection of the second proviso to sub Section 3 of Section 11. Under the impugned judgment the learned Appellate Authority found that the tenant who is a pensioner is not entitled for the protection of the second proviso. On the basis of that finding the Appellate Authority ordered eviction under sub Section 3 of Section 11. 2. In this revision filed under Section 20 various grounds have been raised assailing the judgment of the Appellate Authority. Sri.P.V.Chandramohan, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner addressed strenuous submissions before us on the basis of those grounds. It was submitted by Sri.Chandramohan that the finding that the need is bona fide is contrary to the evidence available on record. He submitted that at any rate the finding that the tenant is not entitled for the protection of the second proviso to sub Section 3 of Section 11 is incorrect. According to him, R. C. R No.52 of 2012 -3- it had become evident that the tenant was depending mainly on the income which he derives from the business carried on in the tenanted premises for his livelihood and also that other suitable buildings are not available in the locality for the tenant to shift his business. According to the learned counsel the findings entered by the Appellate Authority in the context of second proviso to sub Section 3 of Section 11 are illegal, irregular and improper and liable to be vacated by us in revision. 3. The persuasiveness of Sri.Chandramohan notwithstanding, having scanned the judgment of the Appellate Authority as well as the order of this Court in RCR No.360/10 (a copy of which was placed before us by Sri.Chandramohan himself), we are of the view that the finding that the need projected by the landlady is a bona fide one attained finality by the order in RCR.360/10. This Court remanded the RCA to the Appellate Authority only for entering findings regarding the tenant's eligibility for the protection of the second proviso to sub Section 3 of Section R. C. R No.52 of 2012 -4- 11. Having gone through the impugned judgment, we are of the view that the finding presently entered in favour of the landlord has been entered correctly keeping in mind the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in _Francis v. Sreedevi Varassiar (2003(2) KLT 230)_ and the judgment of the Supreme Court in _Kunhamma v. Akkali Purushothaman (2007(3) KLT 99)_ which takes the view that the burden is that of the tenant to show that he satisfies both the ingredients of the second proviso to sub Section 3 of Section 11. Admittedly the income which the petitioner gets from the business that he is carrying on is not his sole means of livelihood. He is a pensioner. When it is shown that the tenant has more than one source of income, it is the tenant's obligation to produce supportive evidence before the fact finding authorities under the statute and prove that the income from the business carried on by him in the tenanted premises accounts for his principal source of livelihood. The same is the position regarding the R. C. R No.52 of 2012 -5- availability of suitable buildings in the locality. It has been found by the Appellate Authority that the evidence adduced by the tenant falls short of holding that the tenant has proved that he satisfies the second ingredient of the second proviso to sub Section 3 of Section 11. In short we do not find any illegality, irregularity or impropriety with the finding of the Appellate Authority. Revision necessarily has to fail and the same will stand dismissed. Sd/PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE Sd/A. V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE kns/- //TRUE COPY// P. A. TO JUDGE PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & A. V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JJ. -----------------------------------------------R. C. R No.52 of 2012 -----------------------------------------------Dated this the 14[th] day of February, 2012 ## **ORDER** _Pius C. Kuriakose, J_ After we passed the order Sri.Chandramohan submitted that at the time of entrustment the revision petitioner had paid a sum of ` 1,15,000/- to the respondent landlady as security and that the landlady in her evidence as PW1 admitted having received ` 1,15,000/- as security. He submitted that at any rate the revision petitioner should be given at least one year's time to surrender the building. He requested that the time may be granted and orders be passed directing that delivery will be effected only after the sum of ` 1,15,000/- already paid by way of security is re-paid to the revision petitioner/tenant. 2. We feel that even though we have confirmed the order of eviction, notice can be issued to the respondent to decide on the extent of time to be granted and as to how the R. C. R No.52 of 2012 -7- amount of ` 1 15,000/- admittedly received by the landlady can be paid back to the revision petitioner. Hence, issue urgent notice to the respondent to decide the above two points. ## I.A. No.333/12 Interim stay for two months. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE A. V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE kns/-