Only Those Subsequent Events Which Completely Eclipse Need Of Landlord Are Decisive For Overturning Eviction Order: Kerala High Court

The High Court was considering a revision petition filed by the tenant challenging the findings of the Rent Control Appellate Authority that the respondent-landlord was entitled to get vacant possession of the petition-scheduled building as per Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965.

The Division Bench of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice P. Krishna Kumar observed, “While it is correct to say that the landlord’s requirement must continue throughout the litigation and exist on the date of the order of the final Court, the true test for assessing the impact of subsequent events on such requirements is a different aspect. Only those subsequent events which completely eclipse the need of the landlord, are decisive for overturning the eviction order, if any, already passed. If that is not the situation, the court can proceed on the basis of the aforesaid general rule.”

Advocate Meena. A. represented the Petitioner while Advocate Sadchith P Kurup represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The Respondents are the owners of the petitioned scheduled building, which was rented out to the petitioner by their predecessor-in-interest. Respondents contended that the first among them had no job, and hence he wanted to start a business in Hardware in the petition scheduled room. It was resisted by the petitioner by contending that the landlords have several other vacant rooms which are more convenient for starting the said business.

The eviction petition was filed in 1997 under Section 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act. The Rent Control Court dismissed the petition, finding that the landlords had no bonafides. On appeal, the Rent Control Appellate Authority found in favour of the landlords and ordered eviction. This finding was reversed by the High Court and the case was remanded back to the trial court for taking fresh evidence as regards certain subsequent events regarding the landlords obtaining vacant possession of three shop rooms followed by the eviction order.

After considering fresh evidence, the Rent Control Court again found that the landlords were not entitled to evict the tenants as they had other vacant rooms. However, the Appellate Authority found that the tenant failed to prove the existence of any circumstances for invoking the first proviso to Section 11(3) and the landlords bonafide required vacant possession of the petition-scheduled building for their own occupation. The revision petition thus came to be filed before the High Court challenging these findings.

Reasoning

The Bench, at the outset, said, “The landlords being the best Judges of their cause, neither the tenant nor the court is expected to command them that they should alter the structure of the vacant rooms in their possession to suit them for starting the proposed business.”

The Appellate Authority had observed that the basic substratum of the findings of the Rent Control Court is that the landlords subsequently obtained possession of three rooms together having a combined area of 689.74 sq.ft. which is larger than the petition-scheduled building. The Bench was of the view that the conversion of a building, may involve significant financial commitments and could also impact its structural integrity. “These considerations might have deterred the landlords from undertaking such modifications. Matters of this nature should fall within the exclusive domain of the landlord, and the court should refrain from delving into such areas”, it added.

As per the Bench, the need of the landlords cannot be said to be completely eclipsed because of the subsequent event. They subsequently obtained possession of a building that could be used for their proposed purpose only if the rooms were combined together by removing the partition walls. Thus, it couldnot also be considered as a factor affecting their bonafides.

The Court also stated, “If, in order to defend the claim of the landlords, the tenant alleges that the landlords subsequently obtained possession of a suitable vacant building, the onus lies on the tenant to establish it. It appears that the trial court proceeded on the assumption that the entire burden of proof to show that it was not suitable, rested on the landlords. If the crucial finding on which the decision of the court is based arises from a misplaced burden of proof, that alone is sufficient to overturn the verdict by the appellate court.”

As per the Bench, all these aspects completely justified the findings of the Appellate Authority that the landlords bona fide required the vacant possession of the tenanted premises. Thus, finding no reason to interfere with the eviction order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, the Bench dismissed the Petition while allowing the petitioner to continue their occupation in the petition schedule building for a further period of four months on a conditional basis.

Cause Title: P.M. Ismail v. Sadchith P Kurup & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:20458)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocates Meena.A., Kurian Antony Edassery, Vinod Ravindranath K.C.Kiran, M.R.Mini, Anish Antony Anathazhath, Thareeq Anver K., Nivedhitha Prem. V

Respondents: Advocates Sadchith P Kurup, C.P. Anil Raj, Siva Suresh, B.Sreedevi, Athira Vijayan

Click here to read/download Order