High Court of KeralaDivision Bench2020-11-04Revision petition rejected; eviction confirmed;...

Thankamony Amma, Mohanachandran Pillai and Vimalamma v. A.R.AYYAPPAN PILLAI AMMA VEEDU, CUTCHERRY WARD, Kollam; Anitha, W/o A R AYYAPPAN PILLAI, Amma Veedu, CUTCHERRY WARD, Kollam; Sivarajan, Stamp Vendor, East of Collect orate, Kollam

Case / Petition Number:RCRev..No.185 OF 2020

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: K. Vinod Chandran
T.R. Ravi
Judgment Date: 2020-11-04
Court Decision / Holding: The revision petition is rejected; eviction order under Section 11(3) upheld; six months’ time to vacate granted on the condition of filing an affidavit within two weeks and vacating within six months, while continuing to pay rent; arrears, if any, to be paid within two months; costs awarded to the landlords.
Final Disposition: Revision petition rejected; eviction confirmed; six months to vacate with conditions; arrears and costs.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

THANKAMONY AMMA, AGED 67 YEARS D/O PADMANABHA PILLAI, VISHNATHU KAVU NAGAR-135, THIRUMULLAVARAM, KOLLAM
MOHANACHANDRAN PILLAI, AGED 63 YEARS S/O PADMANABHA PILLAI, VISHNATHU KAVU NAGAR-135, THIRUMULLAVARAM, KOLLAM
VIMALAMMA, AGED 57 YEARS D/O PADMANABHA PILLAI, VISHNATHU KAVU NAGAR-135, THIRUMULLAVARAM, KOLLAM

Respondents

A.R.AYYAPPAN PILLAI AMMA VEEDU, CUTCHERRY WARD, KOLLAM
ANITHA, W/O A R AYYAPPAN PILLAI, AMMA VEEDU, CUTCHERRY WARD, KOLLAM
SIVARAJAN, AGED 66 YEARS S/O KESAVAN, STAMP VENDOR, EAST OF COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• SMT.SAIRA SOURAJ P.
• SRI.I.V.PRAMOD
• SRI.B.VINOD
• SRI.K.V.SASIDHARAN

Counsels for Respondents

• SHRI.PRATHEESH P.

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Kerala High Court revision petition challenges a Rent Control eviction order. The respondents/landlords sought eviction under sections 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(4)(i) of the Rent Control Act; the Rent Controller granted eviction under 11(3) for bona fide need, which the appellate authority upheld. The petitioners allege that the landlords’ asserted need—construction of an additional floor to provide parking space, requiring demolition of front shop rooms—lacks bona fides since no approved plan or local authority clearance is on record, and there is no evidence of floor-area ratio compatibility or structural stability. They contend that eviction under 11(3) cannot be used to secure possession for reconstruction, argue that 11(4)(iv) would be the appropriate provision only where reconstruction is necessary, and challenge that the parking requirement could not be deemed urgent or essential prior to any construction. The courts below noted that the Town Planning Office returned the plan due to missing parking provisions and lack of space for vehicular maneuvering, and front shop demolition had not occurred. The court cites Shajahan v. V. Mohammed to support a broad interpretation of need for own occupation to include parking, and holds that the petition should be dismissed. The court nevertheless grants six months’ time to vacate on conditions, with arrears and costs to be paid.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 11(2)(b)Section 11(3)Section 11(4)(i)Section 11(4)(iv)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Parking space as part of ‘need of building for own occupation’ (as held in Shajahan and another v. V. Mohammed and another, 2017(5)KHC 584)
11(4)(iv) applies to reconstruction in dilapidated buildings; not applicable here

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The revision petitioners submit that the landlord’s asserted need is a pretext to dispossess them. There is no plan, no local authority approval, and no evidence regarding floor-area ratio or structural stability to support construction of a second floor. They argue that Section 11(3) requires a bona fide need for self-occupation, while the proposed parking facility is not proved essential prior to any construction. They further contend that evicting under 11(3) cannot be substituted for reconstruction under 11(4)(iv), which is applicable only to dilapidated buildings. Even if the front shop rooms are demolished, there is no demonstrated parking space or feasibility for providing parking at the time of permit. The petitioner also asserts possible collusion with officials but that claim remains unsubstantiated. The petitioners emphasize that planning authorities return plans lacking parking, implying the proposed need is not bona fide and that demolition of shop rooms is not established to be essential for the parking requirement.

Contentions of Respondents

The landlords argue the need to provide additional parking space is genuine and inevitable for the proposed second-floor construction. They point to evidence that the Town Planning Office returned the plan for lack of two-wheeler parking, vehicle maneuvering space, and inadequate open space, underscoring the necessity of parking. They rely on the court’s decision in Shajahan v. V. Mohammed to interpret 11(3) as covering parking requirements when proving bona fide need for occupation. They contend that demolition of the shop front rooms is part of the plan and that approval would inevitably require showing parking space. They maintain that the need for vacant possession arises in time to facilitate construction. Their position is that Section 11(3) is applicable and the eviction should stand, not under 11(4)(iv). They also argue for a fair process with a plan showing parking, which the authorities did not provide, indicating the need is not merely speculative but grounded in construction plans and parking feasibility.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Shajahan and another v. V.Mohammed and another	2017(5)KHC 584	Positive	The court adopts the proposition from this case that ‘need of the building for his own occupation’ includes the need for parking space, informing its interpretation of Section 11(3).

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 Thankamony Amma, Mohanachandran Pillai and Vimalamma v. A.R.AYYAPPAN PILLAI AMMA VEEDU, CUTCHERRY WARD, Kollam; Anitha, W/o A R AYYAPPAN PILLAI, Amma Veedu, CUTCHERRY WARD, Kollam; Sivarajan, Stamp Vendor, East of Collect orate, Kollam 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 K.VINOD CHANDRAN** ## **&** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI** **WEDNESDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020/13TH KARTHIKA, 1942** **RCRev..No.185 OF 2020** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN RCA 38/2018 OF ADDL.DISTRICT COURT - VI, KOLLAM RCP 58/2011 OF ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER/ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT, KOLLAM** ## **REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANTS:** - **1 THANKAMONY AMMA,AGED 67 YEARS D/O PADMANABHA PILLAI, VISHNATHU KAVU NAGAR-135, THIRUMULLAVARAM, KOLLAM.** - **2 MOHANACHANDRAN PILLAI, AGED 63 YEARS S/O PADMANABHA PILLAI,VISHNATHU KAVU NAGAR-135, THIRUMULLAVARAM, KOLLAM.** - **3 VIMALAMMA,AGED 57 YEARS D/O PADMANABHA PILLAI, VISHNATHU KAVU NAGAR135, THIRUMULLAVARAM, KOLLAM.** - **BY ADVS. SMT.SAIRA SOURAJ P., SRI.I.V.PRAMOD, SRI.B.VINOD,SRI.K.V.SASIDHARAN** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:** - **1 A.R.AYYAPPAN PILLAI AMMA VEEDU, CUTCHERRY WARD, KOLLAM** - **2 ANITHA, W/O A R AYYAPPAN PILLAI, AMMA VEEDU, CUTCHERRY WARD, KOLLAM** - **3 SIVARAJAN,AGED 66 YEARS S/O KESAVAN, STAMP VENDOR, EAST OF COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM.** **R1 &2 BY SHRI.PRATHEESH P.** **THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** R.C.R.No.185/2020 -2- ## **ORDER** ## **T.R.Ravi, J.** The respondent/tenant in a rent control proceedings initiated by the respondents herein are the petitioners in this revision petition. The respondents filed R.C.P.No.58 of 2011 before the Additional Rent Controller, Kollam, seeking eviction under sections 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(4)(i). The Additional Rent Controller granted eviction by judgment dated 21.12.2017, against which the revision petitioner filed R.C.A.No.38 of 2018 before the Additional District Judge-VI, Kollam. The appellate authority confirmed the order of eviction by judgment dated 14.7.2020 and it is challenging the said judgment that the revision petition is filed. 2. Eviction has been sought on the ground that the landlord intended to put up an additional floor over the existing two-storey residential-cum-commercial building, that the additional construction will require additional car parking space, that the shop rooms in front of the building will have to be R.C.R.No.185/2020 -3- demolished to facilitate such additional car parking space and that permission for construction can be obtained only after demolishing the shop rooms in front of the building, which includes the shop room occupied by the petitioner. The landlord had stated that the tenant of the other shop rooms have agreed to surrender, whereas the petitioners have refused to vacate. The Rent Controller rejected the prayer for eviction under Section 11(2)(b) and 11(4)(i). However eviction was ordered under Section 11(3), finding that the need put forward by the landlords was bona fide. The appellate authority agreed with the finding of the Rent Controller and confirmed the order of eviction under Section 11(3). 3. Heard Sri B.Vinod on behalf of the revision petitioners and Sri Pratheesh P. on behalf of the respondents/Caveators. 4. The contention of the revision petitioners is that the need put forward by the landlords is only a ruse to get eviction and is not bona fide. According to the Counsel, no plan has been prepared nor approved by the local authority and there is also no R.C.R.No.185/2020 -4- evidence regarding whether the floor area ratio permits such addition of floor under the Kerala Municipality Building Rules. It is also claimed that there is no evidence regarding the structural stability of the present building. According to him, in the absence of such evidence, the need put forward by the landlords can never be treated as bona fide. Another contention taken by the revision petitioner is that eviction cannot be sought under Section 11(3) and the reason stated by the landlords can only be one under Section 11(4)(iv) of the Rent Control Act (wrongly shown as 11(iv)(5) in the revision petition), which permits eviction for reconstruction purposes. It is further contended that even if the shop rooms are demolished, there will be no sufficient space for the car parking facility as claimed. The Counsel also submits that the requirement for vacant possession will arise only after the reconstruction is over and the additional floor is constructed and there is no necessity to create parking space even before the additional floor is constructed. 5. The courts below on appreciating the evidence on R.C.R.No.185/2020 -5- record, have found that the Town Planning Office, Kollam, has returned the plan for the proposed additional 2[nd] floor to the landlords, stating that no provision has been made for twowheeler parking, loading and unloading, etc., and that there is a lack of space for the mandatory vehicle maneuvering area. It is also stated that the shop standing in the front open space has not been demolished. Even though it was contended that there is collusion between the officials and the landlords, the same was not attempted to be substantiated, despite the fact that a responsible official from the Corporation was examined as a witness, is the finding. The appellate authority had placed reliance on the judgment of this court in **Shajahan and another v. V.Mohammed and another** reported in **[2017(5)KHC 584]** , wherein this Court had held that the expression, 'need of the building for his own occupation', contemplated under Section 11(3) of the Act would also include the need of providing sufficient space for parking vehicles. We are in total agreement with the above proposition. R.C.R.No.185/2020 -6- 6. The contention of the revision petitioner that the landlords ought to have initiated proceedings under Section 11(4) (iv) and not under Section 11(3) cannot be accepted. Section 11(4(iv) applies in cases where the building is in a dilapidated condition and requires reconstruction. In the case on hand, the landlord does not require eviction for the purpose of any reconstruction. The requirement of the landlord is for providing additional parking space, which would be required when he makes the additional construction of the 2[nd] floor to the existing building. Such a need will not come within the purview of Section 11(4)(iv). The further contention of the revision petitioner that the requirement for parking space arises only after the reconstruction is effected also cannot be countenanced. The landlord is bound to show in the plan he submits for the purpose of getting approval for additional construction, the area which has been demarcated as parking space. There can be no approved plan produced, since it would not be issued by the local authority, unless the space is demonstrated to be available R.C.R.No.185/2020 -7- at the time of inspection, for consideration of the application for permit. 7. Having heard the counsel and having considered the judgments of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority, we find that no grounds have been made out warranting an interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The concurrent orders of the courts below do not suffer from any illegality, impropriety or irregularity. The counsel for the revision petitioners finally made a request that sufficient time may be granted to the revision petitioners for vacating the premises. We are inclined to grant 6 months' time to the revision petitioners to vacate the tenanted premises on condition that they file an affidavit before the Rent Controller, within two weeks from the date of issuance of a certified copy of this judgment, undertaking to vacate the tenanted premises within a period of six months from today, and continue to pay the rent for occupation of the promises during such period. The revision petitioners shall also pay to the landlords the arrears of rent, if any, within a period of R.C.R.No.185/2020 -8- 2 months from today. The revision petition is rejected with the above reservation leaving the parties to suffer their respective costs. Sd/- **K. VINOD CHANDRAN JUDGE** Sd/- **T.R. RAVI JUDGE** dsn