RCREV. NO. 39 OF 2025 1 2025:KER:26834 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. 39 OF 2025 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.12.2024 IN RCA NO.150 OF 2023 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT KOZHIKODE-III/II ADDITIONAL MACT, KOZHIKODE ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER DATED 26.09.2023 IN RCP NO.52 OF 2019 OF MUNSIFF COURT, VADAKARA REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS : 1 SHYLAJA AGED 76 YEARS W/O. MUKUNDAN, KAKKAT HOUSE, CHORODE VILLAGE, CHENDAMANGALAM DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673106 2 ASHA AGED 51 YEARS D/O. MUKUNDAN, KAKKAT HOUSE, CHORODE VILLAGE, CHENDAMANGALAM DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673106 3 ANISHA AGED 46 YEARS D/O. MUKUNDAN,KAKKAT HOUSE, CHORODE VILLAGE, CHENDAMANGALARN DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673106 RCREV. NO. 39 OF 2025 2 2025:KER:26834 4 ABHILASH AGED 44 YEARS D/O. MUKUNDAN, KAKKAT HOUSE, CHORODE VILLAGE, CHENDAMANGALAM DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673106 BY ADVS. K.LAKSHMINARAYANAN SATHYASHREE PRIYA EASWARAN N.L.KRISHNAMOORTHY RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: K.SASIDHARAN AGED 74 YEARS S/O. KARUNAKARAN, PHOTOGRAPHER, "SREE", VATAKARA VILLAGE, VATAKARA DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673101 BY ADVS. B.KRISHNAN R.PARTHASARATHY(K/151/1996) THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: RCREV. NO. 39 OF 2025 3 2025:KER:26834 O R D E R A.Muhamed Mustaque, J. The tenants are the revision petitioners. They challenge an order of eviction passed under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 ('the Act' in short). The landlord is a photographer and wants to establish a studio. Accordingly, he filed a petition for eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act. The Rent Control Court found that there was no challenge against his need and also found that the tenants failed to establish that they depend on the tenanted premises for their livelihood and that there is no other vacant room available in the tenanted premises. The appellate authority also affirmed the eviction order. The main argument of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners is that the order of the Rent Control Court is cryptic and lacks proper reasoning. It is submitted that there is no satisfaction as to the bonafides of the landlord's claim or the justification for ordering eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act. RCREV. NO. 39 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:26834 2. We have gone through the order. Though the order of the Rent Control Court is short and brief, nevertheless we cannot say that it is without reason. The Rent Control Court found that no documents were produced to establish that the tenants depend on the tenanted premises for their livelihood and their income is derived from the tenanted premises. In the absence of any documents, the Rent Control Court was not expected to provide elaborate reasons for its finding against the tenants under the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. It is to be noted that there was no significant challenge against the need projected by the landlord. Anyway, the appellate authority has gone into the matter in detail and ruled against the tenants. In such circumstances, we find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the appellate authority. 3. However, we grant six months' time from today to the tenants to vacate the building on the following terms and conditions; 1) The revision petitioners/tenants shall undertake RCREV. NO. 39 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:26834 that they will vacate the building within six months from today. They shall file an undertaking within four weeks from today. 2) They shall pay the entire arrears within the above time and shall continue to pay the rent due till the date of delivery. The revision fails and it is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE Sd/- P.KRISHNA KUMAR JUDGE rkj