Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

P.Ubaid, J.

The landlord, who obtained an order of eviction from the trial court under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), lost it in appeal. Now he is before this Court with this revision brought under Section 20 of the Act, challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment of the Appellate Authority against him. He filed R.C.P No.9/2007 before the Rent Control Court (Munsiff Court, Perambra) seeking eviction on the ground of bonafide need under Section 11(3) of the Act. The petition schedule building was let out to the tenant (respondent herein) years back. In 1993, when he was aged only 23 years, he filed R.C.P No.1/1993, for eviction on the ground of bonafide need. His request was disallowed by the trial court, and he lost his case in appeal also. The revision brought by him before this  Court as C.R.P No.638/2000 was also dismissed, however giving liberty to him to file a fresh petition on the ground of bonafide need. Accordingly, he brought R.C.P No.9/2007 on the same ground of bonafide need. His case is that he does not have any job or business of his own, and he has decided to start a business in hill produce, for which he wants the petition schedule building. He seeks eviction of the respondent because he has no other building or room in his possession for the said purpose, but the respondent can very well shift his business to some other convenient place in the same locality.

5. Before going to the legal aspect as to whether the present Rent Control Petition is barred under Section 15 of the Act, let us see whether the case of bonafide need advanced by the landlord in this case is acceptable. Admittedly, the petition schedule building was let out to the tenant (respondent herein) years back, and the landlord started his fight for getting his own building for his own purpose as early as in 1993. His definite case is that he is determined to start a business of his own in hill produce for which he requires the building, and he does not have any other space or room for the said purpose. The learned counsel for the tenant cited a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shiv Sarup Gupta V. Dr.Mahesh Chand  Gupta [(1999) 6 SCC 222], wherein the Supreme Court held that the bonafide of the need, or the genuineness of the need projected by the landlord will have to be objectively assessed by the Court, and the Court will have to find whether the need set up by the landlord as a ground for eviction is natural, real, sincere and honest. Of course, it is well settled that in a claim for eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act it must be the concern of the court to rule out any possibility of some need being projected as a ruse for eviction. It is well settled that the Rent Control Court must be satisfied by evidence that the need projected by the landlord in the application for eviction is a genuine need, or a rational and reasonable desire and determination. In this case the need projected by the landlord is that he wants to start a hill produce business in the petition schedule building.

6. The landlord, examined as PW1, has given definite and consistent evidence proving the bonafide need projected by him. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the tenant that the landlord has no consistent case regarding the need alleged by him. But we find that the landlord has well explained in evidence that the hill produce business meant by  him is in fact a business in coconut and copra. We do not find any inconsistency on this aspect. We find that the landlord in this case is determined to start a business of his own in hill produce or a business of coconut and copra, in the petition schedule building. There is absolutely nothing to find that the said need projected by the landlord is a mere wish or an irrational desire, or a fancy wish regarding some business in his vision. We find from his evidence, which is definite and consistent, that he is determined to start a business in hill produce in the petition schedule building, and we find that the need projected by the landlord is quite bonafide.

20. In this case as discussed above, we find material change in the circumstances of the landlord, to maintain a second application on the ground of bonafide need under Section 11(3) of the Act. Accordingly, we find that the present proceeding for eviction is not barred under Section 15 of the Act.

21. In the light of the findings above, we are inclined to allow this revision brought by the landlord. We find that the revision petitioner (landlord) is entitled to get order of eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act. As regards the application of the  first proviso and the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act also we concur with the findings of the authorities below on facts. We find that the approach of the Rent Control Appellate Authority on the question of bonafide need is erroneous, and the appellate judgment on that ground is liable to be reversed. We find that the order of eviction rightly granted by the trial court on the ground of bonafide need was wrongly disallowed by the Appellate Authority, on an erroneous appreciation of facts and evidence. On the question of law involved also we have come to a finding in favour of the landlord. In the above circumstances, the judgment of the Appellate Authority will have to be set aside, and the order of eviction granted by the trial court will have to be accepted and maintained as proper and legal. In the particular facts and circumstances, the parties can bear their costs of this proceedings.