LAWS(KER)-2024-12-84

CATHILIC SYRIAN BANK LTD. Vs. LATHA

Decided On December 10, 2024
Cathilic Syrian Bank Ltd. Appellant
V/S
LATHA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The bank is the revision petitioner in both the rent control revisions. The bank is the landlord in respect of a row of buildings. The bank filed rent control petition for eviction under Ss. 11(3) and 11(4)(iv) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (for short "the Act"). The Rent Control Court as well as the Appellate Authority allowed eviction under Sec. 11(4)(iv) of the Act for reconstruction. However, it declined the eviction sought under Sec. 11(3) for bona fide needs of the bank. The bank, aggrieved by the order declining eviction under Sec. 11(3) of the Act, has come up with the revision invoking Sec. 20 of the Act.

(2.) The bank had produced Ext.A7 plan. Ext.A7 plan is the proposed construction after eviction. Ext.A8 is also plan. These plans indicate that there exists twelve shop rooms in the proposed construction. Taking note of the fact that the plans indicate that the ground floor has been divided into twelve shop rooms and bank cannot occupy those shop rooms for the purpose of banking business, The Rent Control Court as well as the Rent Control Appellate Authority found that bona fide need claimed is bereft of bona fides.

(3.) What is bona fides ? Does it require a subjective element for assessment or it requires to be objectively considered or not.