PUTHIYA PURAYIL KANAMADATHIL VALSALAN Vs. SULOCHANA K. C.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The landlords sought eviction of the tenant on the ground of bona fide need for own occupation for one of them under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 ['the Act']. The bona fide need alleged is that the petition scheduled premises was required to start a garment manufacturing unit by the fifth petitioner in the rent control petition. The rent control court as well as the appellate authority (after an initial order of remand) upheld the bona fide need alleged and directed the eviction of the tenant from the premises. This Court in a revision petition at the instance of the tenant confirmed the concurrent orders of eviction however granting him a period of eight months to vacate the premises. This was subject to the condition that the tenant files an affidavit before the execution court undertaking to vacate the premises on the expiry of the period and pay rent till such time.

(2.) The petitioner herein who is the tenant filed an affidavit of undertaking on 8.4.2019 as directed and availed of the extended time to vacate the premises till the expiry of the period of eight months on 22.9.2019. The fifth petitioner in the rent control petition whose bona fide need was alleged, died in the interregnum on 4.7.2019 and his legal heirs have stepped into his shoes. The respondents herein are the legal heirs of the deceased fifth petitioner in the rent control petition and other landlords who have applied for delivery of the premises in execution. The tenant taking advantage of the death of one of the landlords filed an additional counter statement to the execution petition contending that the bona fide need does not survive. The execution court has by the order impugned overruled the objections of the tenant and has directed the premises to be delivered over to the landlords by deputing an amin.

(3.) We heard Mr K.M.Firoz, Advocate for the petitioner as well as Mr Vinod Bhat, Advocate as amicus curiae.