POOZHIPARAMBATH SAFIYA Vs. MAPPANTAVIDA SREEDHARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The landlord secured an eviction order from the Rent Controller under Sec. 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short, the 'Act'). In an appeal filed by the tenant, the appellate authority reversed the order of eviction under Sec. 11(3) and converted it into an eviction under Sec. 11(8) of the Act. In this revision, the tenant questions the proceedings of eviction on the ground that the landlord's claim under Sec. 11(3) having been dismissed and, without maintaining a separate challenge, the landlord cannot claim the benefit of an order of eviction under Sec. 11(8) of the Act.

(2.) The landlord approached the Rent Controller under Sec. 11(3) projecting bona fide need to start a stitching unit. In the upstairs, the landlord is conducting a textile business. The Rent Controller allowed eviction under Sec. 11(3). The tenant is found not entitled for protection from eviction under the proviso to Sec. 11(3) of the Act as she failed to prove that the income from the building is her main source of income. Admittedly, the tenanted premises is being used as a godown for the business of her husband. In appeal, the rent control appellate authority, noting the fact that the tenanted premises is a part of the building owned by the landlord, upheld the claim of the landlord under Sec. 11(8) and ordered eviction accordingly.

(3.) Perhaps, it is necessary to distinguish the features of eviction that can be sought under Ss. 11(3) and 11(8). Sec. 11(3) allows eviction if the building is required for own occupation of the landlord or a dependant family member. This is subject to further rigour under the first and second provisos of Sec. 11(3). The first proviso states that if the landlord has another building of his own, in his possession, in the same town or locality, the Rent Controller shall not order eviction on proof of bona fide need except for special reasons to be recorded. The second proviso also states that even if the landlord is able to establish his bona fide need, the tenant shall not be evicted if the tenant is depending, for his livelihood, mainly on the income derived from the trade or business carried out in such building and there are no suitable buildings to shift such business. Sec. 11(8) would come into play if the tenanted premises is part of the larger building in possession of the landlord and the landlord requires the building for an additional accommodation for his personal use. The Rent Controller can reject the application for additional accommodation if he is satisfied that the hardship which may be caused to the tenant by granting eviction will outweigh the advantage to the landlord.