RCR 59 of 2025 1 2025:KER:28399 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 3RD DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 13TH CHAITHRA, 1947 RCREV. NO. 59 OF 2025 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.11.2024 IN RCA NO.26 OF 2024 OF THE RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, COURT, PALAKKAD ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER DATED 01.06.2024 IN RCP NO.1 OF 2023 OF THE RENT CONTROL COURT, OTTAPPALAM REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT: ACHUTHADAS AGED 57 YEARS S/O SANKARANARAYANAN EZHUTHASSAN, PUNNADIYIL VEETTIL, PANAMANNA AMSOM, DESOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679501 BY ADVS. SANTHEEP ANKARATH P.ANIRUDHAN RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS: 1 RENU, AGED 44 YEARS W/O GOPINATHAN, KATTUMOOCHIKKAL, KANNIAMPURAM AMSOM, THOTTAKKARA DESOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679102 2 GOPINATHAN RCR 59 of 2025 2 2025:KER:28399 AGED 52 YEARS S/O. AYYAPPANEZHUTHASSAN, KATTUMOOCHIKKAL, KANNIAMPURAM AMSOM, THOTTAKKARA DESOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679102 BY ADVS. SREEHARI R HAMZA A.V.(K/1588/2022) APARNA M.P.(K/001753/2024) CIBY PAUL(K/892/2000) THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: RCR 59 of 2025 3 2025:KER:28399 A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE & P.KRISHNA KUMAR, JJ --------------------------------------------------------- R.C.Rev.No. 59 of 2025 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of April, 2025 O R D E R A.Muhamed Mustaque.J The tenant is the revision petitioner. He challenges the orders of eviction passed under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (‘the Act’ for short) on the ground of the bona fide need of the landlord. Both the Rent Control Court and the Rent Control Appellate Authority affirmed the landlord's need for eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act. The tenant also failed to get the benefit of the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act, as he could not prove that no other suitable buildings are available in the locality. 2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the rent control petition was originally filed by the first respondent, the wife of the second respondent. It is contended that the first respondent had no subsisting interest or right in the building and, therefore, the rent control petition itself was not maintainable. It is submitted that the second respondent, the husband of the first respondent, is the landlord and owner of the building. Therefore, RCR 59 of 2025 4 2025:KER:28399 merely impleading the second respondent at a later stage cannot legalize an illegal proceeding initiated by a stranger. It is further contended that the need projected is for the demolition of the existing building and the subsequent establishment of a supermarket by the respondents. It is submitted that such a need does not fall within the ambit of 'occupation' as referred to under Section 11(3) of the Act. 3. It is also argued that, initially, a kaichit notice was issued demanding the tenant to vacate the building for the needs of respondents' children. Thereafter, the landlord abruptly changed the ground by projecting the need of the respondents, who are husband and wife. It is contended that, this indicates a lack of bona fides. 4. As seen from the impugned order, the petition was not maintainable from the outset, inasmuch as it was filed by the first respondent without any authority or a power of attorney authorizing them to file the case. 5. However, at a later stage, consequent to the objection raised by the tenant, the original landlord was brought on record, and thereafter, the case proceeded to trial. If that be so, the impleadment of the second respondent would relate back to the original cause of action, thereby legitimizing the entire proceedings instituted. 6. The need projected is for the occupation of the RCR 59 of 2025 5 2025:KER:28399 building after reconstruction. The term 'occupation' as referred to under Section 11 (3) cannot be restricted to the immediate use of the building after eviction. The landlord has the right to reconstruct the building after obtaining possession and is entitled to use it in any manner permitted by law. Once the process of eviction is complete, the entire building along with the land will be in the possession or occupation of the landlord. The law only envisages such occupation in this manner. The post-eviction scenario is not within the scope of consideration by the Rent Control Court. Therefore, it is clear that the need projected for occupation includes both the need to occupy the building and the right of the landlord to reconstruct it for any purpose permitted under law. 7. We treat the last point argued by the learned counsel —namely, that the need was initially projected on behalf of the children and was later changed to the need of the respondents—as devoid of merit. After all, human decisions may change depending on circumstances and exigencies that require such choices. It is for the landlord to decide whether the need is for the children or for themselves to start a business. A fluctuating interest cannot be subjected to scrutiny for subjective evaluation in rent control proceedings. We find no merit in the revision petition. 8. Therefore, this Rent Control Revision Petition is RCR 59 of 2025 6 2025:KER:28399 dismissed. However, considering the fervent plea made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, time till 31.12.2025 is granted to the petitioner to surrender vacant possession of the petition-scheduled shop room to the respondents, subject to the following conditions: (i) The petitioner shall file an affidavit before the Rent Control Court or the Execution Court, as the case may be, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, expressing an unconditional undertaking that he will surrender vacant possession of the petition-scheduled shop room to the respondents- landlords on or before 31.12.2025 and that, he shall not induct third parties into possession of the petition- scheduled shop room. (ii) The petitioner shall deposit the entire arrears of rent as on date, if any, before the Rent Control Court or the Execution Court, as the case may be, within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, and shall continue to pay rent for every succeeding month, without any default; (iii) Needless to say, failing to comply with any one of the conditions stated above, the time limit granted by this RCR 59 of 2025 7 2025:KER:28399 order to surrender vacant possession of the petition- scheduled shop room will stand cancelled automatically, and the landlords will be at liberty to proceed with the execution of the order of eviction. Sd/- A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE Sd/- P.KRISHNA KUMAR, JUDGE dlk/3.4.