Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

K.Ramakrishnan, J.

The tenant in R.C.P.No.18 of 2012 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Koyilandy is the revision petitioner herein. The original landlady filed R.C.P.No.18 of 2012 seeking eviction of the tenant from the petition schedule building on the ground of arrears of rent, bonafide need for her grandson and cessation of occupation of the building by the tenant under section 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(4)(v) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short. During the pendency of the petition, the landlady died and supplemental petitioners 2 to 4 were impleaded as her legal heirs. It is alleged in the petition that the original landlady leased out the building to the tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.300/- as per a registered kychit dated 27.6.2003. He did not pay rent. So she filed R.C.P.No.7 of 2004 and subsequently the same was settled between the parties and arrears of rent upto 27.2.2004 was paid. Thereafter the rent was kept in arrears. He has ceased to occupy the  building for more than one year without any reasonable cause. The second petitioner's son Sri.Abdul Gafoor has no job and income for his livelihood. He requires the petition schedule building to start a stationery business. He has got sufficient experience in conducting the business. There are no other vacant building available in their possession. He is depending on the landlady for this purpose. The tenant is not eking out his livelihood from the income derived from the business and there are other buildings available in the locality. The landlady had sent a notice to the tenant asking him to surrender the building stating the above reasons. Though it was received by him, he did not send any reply. Since he had not vacated the premises, the original petitioner in the rent control court filed a petition for eviction on the above grounds.

3. The person on whose bonafide need the petition schedule building was sought to be evicted was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A3 were marked on their side. The tenant was examined as RW1 and Exts.B1 to B7 were marked on his side. After considering the evidence on record, the court below found that there is no rent in arrears and the cessation of occupation has not been proved and denied eviction on those grounds but found that the bonafide need alleged is genuine and the tenant is not entitled to get proviso protection and ordered eviction under section 11(3) of the Act.

7. The dictum laid down in the decision reported in Sumathi T.K. and Others v. Kundantavida Rabis and Others [2012 (1) KHC 589] relied on by the counsel for the revision petitioner is not applicable to the facts of this case. It was a case where the original landlord filed an application for eviction on the ground of his personal bonafide need. The question arose in that case was whether after the death of the original landlord, when the legal heirs were substituted, the bonafide need alleged by the landlord will survive or not and in such circumstances, this court held that even after the death of the original landlord if the need survives to the legal heirs, they will have to make necessary amendment in the petition incorporating those facts  as well. That is not the case in this case. So that dictum is not applicable to the facts of this case.

10. We have perused the order in R.C.P.No.16 of 2012 which will go to show that R.C.P.No.16 of 2012 was dismissed which is the building said to be available in the down floor for PW1 to occupy. That will go to show that no buildings in the possession of the landlady were available at the time when the application was filed or even at the time when PW1 was examined in court and the upstair portion room even  admitted by RW1 is not suitable for conducting a stationery business. So the courts below were perfectly justified in coming to the conclusion that there is no suitable building available in the possession of the landlady and held that there is no ground to deny eviction invoking the first proviso to section 11(3) of the Act. There is nothing brought out to disbelieve the evidence of PW1 regarding the bonafide need alleged. There is no evidence adduced on the tenant also to prove that he is conducting any business of his own to eke out his livelihood. So under the circumstances, the courts below were perfectly justified in coming to the conclusion that the bonafide need alleged by the landlady is genuine. Further it is settled law that it is not the financial dependency that has to be considered and the dependency of building that has to be considered. Further even a need of the grandson can be considered as need of the member of the landlady's member. Further after the death of the original landlady, the mother of PW1 who is the second petitioner in the rent control petition has become a joint owner of the petition schedule building and then he will be treated as a member of the landlords family for whose bonafide need the landlords can seek an order of eviction under section 11(3) of the Act. (See Sameera and Others v. M.C. Mammootty and Another [2013 (4) KHC 826]. It is further held in the decision Mathew v. Aruna [2014 (2) KLT 876] that  dependency can occur in wide range of relationship as between spouses or between parents and children or between brothers and sisters or between cousins or other near relations or even brothers-in- law and sisters-in-law. The same view has been reiterated in the earlier decisions Narayana Pillai v. Ponnappan Achari (1980 KLT