Other Co-owners Can Maintain Action For Eviction Against Tenant Who Has Acquired A Share of Leasehold Property: Kerala HC
The Kerala High Court made such observations while considering a Rent Control Revision.
Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque, Justice P. Krishna Kumar, Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court ruled that the consent of the tenant is immaterial when the co-owners initiate eviction proceedings against such a tenant who has acquired only a fractional interest in the property.
The High Court made such observations while considering a Rent Control Revision.
The Division Bench comprising Justice A.Muhamed Mustaque and Justice P. Krishna Kumar observed, “...the law is well settled that even when the tenant acquires a share of the leasehold property, the other co-owners can maintain an action for eviction against him, as the lease continues to exist.”
Advocate P.B. Subramanyan represented the Petitioners while Advocate K.K.Anilraj represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The petitioners, being the landlords of a shop room filed an eviction petition against the respondent under Section 11(3) of the Buildings (Lease and Rent Control)Act, 1965 claiming their bonafide need for the vacant possession of the tenanted building to start a business in home appliances and household utensils. The Rent Control Court allowed the petition. As the finding was reversed in appeal the petitioners preferred the revision petition by invoking section 20.
The tenant/respondent objected to the eviction petition by contending that it was not maintainable since the petitioners had only 86.67% of the share over the said building and the remaining share vested with the respondent herself as she had purchased an undivided right of those two co-owners. She also disputed the genuineness of the need projected by the petitioners and further contended that she was wholly dependent on the income derived from the business for her livelihood.
Reasoning
On the issue of the permissibility of seeking eviction against a tenant who purchased a fractional interest over the tenanted premises, the Bench said, “...even if the tenant is one of the co-owners, he can be evicted or other leasehold rights can be enforced against him at the instance of the remaining coowners.”
The Bench was of the view that the Appellate Authority seriously erred in importing the general principle for holding that the petitioners required the permission of the tenant to maintain such an action against him as he became one of the co-owners. “The consent of the tenant is immaterial when the co-owners initiate eviction proceedings against such a tenant who has acquired only a fractional interest in the property”, it held.
“Consent to sue, either implied or express, is required from a co-owner who shares reversion against the tenant, and not from the tenant/co-owner, as he does not hold any right of reversion against himself”, the Bench further observed.
As per the High Court, what is relevant for the enquiry contemplated under Section 11(3) is whether the landlord bonafide needs the building for his occupation, the purpose for which he requires the building is not a primary consideration under the statute, which may have a bearing on the question of the genuineness of the need. Moreover, a landlord is not bound to plead remote aspects in anticipation that such questions may arise later. The Bench also discarded the conclusion of the Appellate Authority that the proposed need was not bonafide.
Thus, the Bench allowed the revision petition, set aside the impugned order and restored the order passed by the Rent Control Court. “However, the respondent is permitted to vacate the premises within three months”, it concluded.
Cause Title: Mariya P. P v. Nalupurayil Kadeeja (Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:1810)
Appearance:
Petitioners: Advocates P.B.Subramanyan, P.B.Krishnan, Sabu George, Manu Vyasan Peter, Meera P.
Respondent: Advocates K.K. Anilraj, U.K.Devidas