Kerala High Court
Chirakkal Nadukkandy Abdul Rahim Alias ... vs Smt. Maimu on 27 March, 2025
Author: A. Muhamed Mustaque
Bench: A.Muhamed Mustaque
2025:KER:26185
R.C.Rev. No.57 of 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
THURSDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 6TH CHAITHRA, 1947
RCREV. NO. 57 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.12.2024 IN RCA NO.20 OF
2023 ON THE FILE OF THE RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY
(ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE IV), THALASSERY ARISING OUT OF THE
ORDER DATED 14.10.2022 IN RCP NO.88 OF 2018 ON THE FILE OF
RENT CONTROL COURT (MUNSIFF) THALASSERY
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
CHIRAKKAL NADUKKANDY ABDUL RAHIM ALIAS
KAPPANKANDY ABDUL RAHIM, AGED 70 YEARS, S/O.
MOIDEEN, RESIDING AT ‘SITHARA',
CHETTAMKUNNU, PALISSERY, THALASSERY, KANNUR
DISTRICT, PIN - 670 101
BY ADV R.SURENDRAN
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
SMT. MAIMU, AGED 66 YEARS, W/O. ABOOTTY, RESIDING
AT ‘ARAFA' THIRUVANGAD, CHIRAKKARA,
THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670 104
BY ADV ARJUN J DAS
2025:KER:26185
R.C.Rev. No.57 of 2025
2
THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 27.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:26185
R.C.Rev. No.57 of 2025
3
ORDER
A. Muhamed Mustaque, J.
This revision petition was filed at the instance of the landlord. He sought eviction under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short "Act"). The need projected was that he wants to demolish the tenanted premises for the purpose of providing an adequate parking area to the adjacent building owned by him. The revision petitioner/landlord is a Non Resident of India, and he had executed a power of attorney. The power of attorney holder alone was examined, as the revision petitioner/landlord could not come down to India during the trial. Noting that the landlord was not examined and there is no proof in regard to the bona fides of the landlord under Section 11(3) of the Act, the Rent Control Court dismissed the petition, and this also has been affirmed by the Appellate Authority. This is how the revision petitioner/landlord has approached this Court.
2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/landlord submits that, since the need projected itself 2025:KER:26185 R.C.Rev. No.57 of 2025 4 would signify the bona fides, there is no necessity to examine the landlord, as no other mental elements are required to be demonstrated before court. It is further submitted that the power of attorney holder is conversant with the requirements, and he has deposed to signify the need of the revision petitioner/landlord.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent opposed and submits that the non examination of the revision petitioner/landlord is fatal in such a petition, as the tenant is denied the right to cross examine the veracity of the claim put forward by the landlord.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/landlord that the landlord is now available, and he is prepared to depose before the court. While analysing the "bona fide need" in a proceeding under Section 11(3) of the Act, the focal point of the enquiry is in regard to the state of mind of the landlord. The court is not focusing on the "need" but rather on the "bona fides" of the landlord for projecting such a need for eviction. In such matters, we cannot say that it is safe to accept the evidence of the power of attorney holder, who can 2025:KER:26185 R.C.Rev. No.57 of 2025 5 only depose in regard to the need, and he cannot depose in regard to the bona fides for such need. Such being the case, we are of the view that an opportunity should be given to the revision petitioner/landlord. Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Authority is set aside, and we give an opportunity to the revision petitioner/landlord to depose before the Appellate Authority. The parties shall appear before the Appellate Authority on 04.04.2025. Thereafter, the Appellate Authority shall dispose of the matter at the earliest. Both parties shall be given an opportunity to adduce evidence, if necessary.
This Rent Control Revision is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE Sd/-
P. KRISHNA KUMAR JUDGE PR