Kerala High Court
Davood vs K.S.Prasanan on 28 October, 2019
Bench: V.Chitambaresh, Ashok Menon
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON
MONDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 6TH KARTHIKA, 1941
R.C.Rev.No.392 OF 2019
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 10-08-2018 IN RCA 113/2017 OF IV
ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THRISSUR
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30-07-2015 IN RCP 60/2013 OF RENT
CONTROL COURT (MUNSIFF), THRISSUR
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:
DAVOOD
AGED 47 YEARS
S/O. KALAKKATTU SULAIMAN, CHEEYYARAM VILLAGE
CHEEYYARAM PO, AND DESOM, THRISSUR DISTRICT
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN
SRI.BALAKRISHNAN GOPINATH
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
K.S.PRASANAN
AGED 61 YEARS
S/O. KOTTIYATTIL SANKARANARAYANAN,
KOORKKANCHERRY PO, THRISSUR DIST - 680 007.
THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
28.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
RCR.No.392/2019
2
ORDER
Chitambaresh, J.
1.A tenant who has been set ex parte in the rent control proceedings has two options. Either the tenant can move an application to set aside the ex parte order of eviction. Or the tenant can file a rent control appeal against the ex parte order of eviction. The scope of the above two vastly differs going by the settled decisions of the Apex Court.
2.Whether the tenant was prevented by sufficient cause for his non- appearance on the date of hearing - does not fall for consideration in the rent control appeal. Whether the evidence on record justify an order of eviction in favour of the landlord alone matters. The tenant in the instant case has not adduced any evidence to claim the protection of the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act 2/1965.
3.The tenant has not established that he is eking out his livelihood from the business conducted in the premises. The tenant has also RCR.No.392/2019 3 not established that there are no other buildings in the locality available to carry on his trade. The authorities below cannot therefore be faulted with in denying the tenant the protection under the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act 2/1965.
4.The application moved to have the ex parte order of eviction set aside was dismissed and that order has become final. The question whether the tenant was prevented by sufficient cause for his non-appearance on the date of hearing falls for consideration in those proceedings only. That order has become final without being challenged and hence the tenant cannot rake up that issue in the rent control appeal.
5.The courts below have concurrently ordered eviction upholding the bona fide need of the landlord. The landlord seeks eviction for his son to start a super market in the premises. The landlord has obtained eviction in respect of the adjacent rooms too and his son has completed his BBA degree. We do not think that the bona fide need projected by the landlord is a mere wish to deny eviction. RCR.No.392/2019 4
6.There is no irregularity, impropriety or illegality in the orders impugned. There is no little scope for interference under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. We confirm the order of eviction and dismiss the rent control revision petition. However we grant the tenant a period of four months to vacate the premises.
7.The tenant is entitled to the time granted as above only if he files an affidavit before the rent control court. Such an affidavit undertaking to vacate the premises on or before the expiry of 120 days shall be filed within one month from today. The tenant shall also undertake to pay the rent till he hands over vacant possession of the premises to the landlord. Dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
V. CHITAMBARESH, JUDGE Sd/-
ASHOK MENON, JUDGE Sha/281019