2025:KER:29296 RCREV. NO. 138 OF 2019 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S. FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1947 RCREV. NO. 138 OF 2019 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 09.07.2018 IN RCA NO.4 OF 2015 OF III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, THALASSERY ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER DATED 12.11.2014 IN RCP NO.2 OF 2013 OF MUNSIFF’S COURT, THALIPARAMBA REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/PETITIONER: MARAKKAVALAPPIL NAZEER AGED 48 YEARS S/O.IBRAHIMKUTTY, MARAKKAVALAPPIL HOUSE, KADEEJA MANZIL, P.O.PAYANGADI R.S., KANNUR TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.ABDUL RAOOF PALLIPATH SRI.E.MOHAMMED SHAFI SRI.K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH) RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: ACHUMMANTAKATH ABDUL MAJEED AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMADKUNHI, MADAYI AMSOM, VENGARA DESOM, P.O.VENGARA, KANNUR TALUK, KANNUR-670305. BY ADV SRI.MAHESH V RAMAKRISHNAN OTHER PRESENT: ADV COMMISSIONER LAKSHMI SREEDHAR THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2025:KER:29296 RCREV. NO. 138 OF 2019 2 DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J. & EASWARAN S., J. ------------------------------- R.C.R. No.138 of 2019 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of April, 2025 O R D E R Easwaran S., J. The revision petition is filed by the landlord aggrieved by the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Aauthority (Additional District Court-III), Thalassery, in RCA No.4/2015 dated 9.7.2018. 2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the revision petition are as follows: The revision petitioner-landlord approached the rent control court, Taliparamba with a petition under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (‘Act’, for short). The buildings in question originally belonged to Jameela Beegam and the tenant obtained one room from Jameela Beegam on 6.10.1997 for a period of three months and another room for conducting a travel agency on 21.2.1995 for six months. On 2.12.2010, the revision petitioner purchased the petition schedule buildings and ever since the respondent continued to be the tenant under the revision petitioner. It was alleged that the tenant has defaulted in payment of rent and the petitioner is in bona fide need 2025:KER:29296 RCREV. NO. 138 OF 2019 3 of the petition schedule buildings along with the adjacent buildings in possession of Valiya Valappil Padinjarepurayil Haneef and Pulimoottil C.L.Vasanthan for starting a furniture shop. Accordingly, notice was issued to the respondent-tenant on 13.10.2012 and the same was accepted on 17.10.2012, but the tenant did not vacate the premises. 3. The respondent-tenant entered appearance and objected to the claim stating that the need projected by the landlord is not bona fide. On behalf of the revision petitioner, Exts.A1 to A6 documents were marked and PW1 was examined. The respondent- tenant produced Ext.B1 extract of the building tax assessment register and RW1 to RW3 were examined. On appreciation of evidence, the rent controller found that the petitioner could not establish the contention that rent is due from 2.12.2010 and that the need projected by the landlord was not bona fide and accordingly dismissed the prayers under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act. Aggrieved by the said order, the revision petitioner-landlord preferred an appeal as RCA No.4/2015. In appeal, the finding under Section 11(3) of the Act was affirmed, but however, the order of the rent controller dismissing the claim under Section 11(2)(b) of the Act was set aside and the landlord was granted eviction under Section 11(2)(b) of the Act. 2025:KER:29296 RCREV. NO. 138 OF 2019 4 4. Dissatisfied with the findings rendered by the rent control appellate court in RCA No.4/2015 confirming the findings of the rent controller in RCP No.2/2013 on the bona fide need under Section 11(3) of the Act, the landlord has come up with the present revision petition. In the meantime, it is stated across the bar that the other tenants have vacated the premises. However, the respondent alone is not evicted. 5. Heard Sri.Abdul Raoof P., the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner-landlord and Sri.Mahesh V.Ramakrishnan, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-tenant. 6. When the matter was taken up for consideration on 21.2.2025, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner- landlord asserted before this Court that the tenant has ceased to occupy the tenanted premises and therefore, the revision petitioner is entitled to get eviction of the tenant on the sole ground alone. At the request of the revision petitioner, we appointed Smt.Lakshmi Sreedhar as the Advocate Commissioner to ascertain the assertion made by the revision petitioner. Accordingly, the Advocate Commissioner visited the tenanted premises on 22.2.2025. The Advocate Commissioner has filed a report dated 22.2.2025. Paragraph Nos.5 to 7 of the said report are extracted hereunder for reference: 2025:KER:29296 RCREV. NO. 138 OF 2019 5 “5. The rooms did not have electricity, and when asked about this, the respondent explained that the electricity supply had been disconnected the previous night. The room contained two tables in a dilapidated state, five chairs, a couple of tubelights, a printer that appeared unused and was kept aside, a scanner kept on the table without being connected to any power source, two laptops, and a few discarded electronic devices, including a CPU. Additionally, there was an exhaust fan. The walls had visible marks and empty spaces, indicating that air conditioners or some other fixtures might have been removed. 6. The overall condition of the room was deplorable. The tables were in poor condition, covered in mold. The paint on the walls was peeling off, and there were visible signs of significant deterioration, including water seepage. When inquired about the operation of the travel agency from the tenanted premises, the employees of Awwummas Jewellery, located on the ground floor, stated that the rooms had been shut for an extended period. They further mentioned that the space had remained unoccupied for a long time. 7. The petitioner pointed out that the respondent had relocated his travel agency to the adjacent building and has been conducting his business from there. To verify this claim, an inspection was carried out from the balcony of the petitioner’s building. From this vantage point, I could see one travel agency namely, Kit Kat Tours & Travels operating in the adjacent building.” 2025:KER:29296 RCREV. NO. 138 OF 2019 6 The facts as presented by the Advocate Commissioner speaks for itself. It is thus indisputable fact that the tenant had ceased to occupy the tenanted premises during the pendency of the revision petition and that a feeble attempt was made by the tenant to make it appear that he is still in occupation of the tenanted premises. However the Advocate commissioner who was present in the court appraised us about the real facts which is reflected through her report. Having come out that the tenant is running a business in a different rented premises, we are of the view that the landlord has made out a case for eviction on the ground of cessation of occupation. 7. Be that as it may, we find that the reasoning of the rent control court as well as the appellate court in rejecting the claim of bona fide need under Section 11(3) also does not inspire confidence in us. It is true that the landlord was in possession of another building. But it has come out in evidence that the same was occupied by other tenants. As regards the need projected by the landlord, we find that no evidence is let in by the tenant to discredit the need projected by the landlord. It is now settled law that the tenant cannot dictate the terms to the landlord as regards the need projected by him. Therefore, we are of the view that the reasoning given by the rent controller as well as by the appellate court on the 2025:KER:29296 RCREV. NO. 138 OF 2019 7 bona fide need also needs to be interfered with. In the light of the compelling facts as disclosed in the report of the Advocate Commissioner, the learned counsel for the tenant submitted before this Court that his client is prepared to surrender the premises, provided a reasonable time is granted. We are of the view that such a request cannot be entertained by us in the light of the overwhelming facts disclosed before us by the report of the Advocate Commissioner, Smt.Lakshmi Sreedhar. Hence, we are of the view that the revision petitioner is entitled to succeed, especially since the appreciation of the evidence being perverse, which calls for interference in the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. 8. In the result, we allow the revision petition, set aside the order/judgment of the rent controller in RCP No.2/2013 confirmed by the appellate court in RCA No.4/2015 and order eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act. We also take note of the fact that the tenant has ceased to occupy the premises during the pendency of the revision petition. However, considering the request made by the learned counsel for the respondent-tenant, we feel in the interest of justice, a period of two weeks from today can be granted for the tenant to vacate the premises. Accordingly, the respondent-tenant 2025:KER:29296 RCREV. NO. 138 OF 2019 8 is directed to vacate the premises within a period of two weeks from today, failing which the revision petitioner can execute the order, in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- DR.A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE Sd/- EASWARAN S., JUDGE jg 2025:KER:29296 RCREV. NO. 138 OF 2019 9 APPENDIX OF RCREV. 138/2019 RESPONDENT ANNEXURES WARRANT WARRANT NOTICE BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER NOTICE BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER RESPONDENT ANNEXURES Annexure R1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE DISABILITY CERTIFICATE DATED 14-08-2002 ISSUED BY THE CHAIRMAN & SUPERINTENDENT, DISTRICT HOSPITAL, KANNUR Annexure R1(b) TRUE COPY OF THE UNIQUE DISABILITY ID ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA TO THIS RESPONDENT