Janab Abdul Rahiman vs Lakshmi and Others

Usha, J.—The question raised in the Civil Revision Petition is whether for a landlord to get eviction of the tenanted building u/s 11(4)(iii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease arid Rent Control) Act, 1965 he has to prove that he bona fide needs the building for his own occupation or for the occupation of any member of his family dependent on him. According to the provisions contained under Sub-section (10) of Section 11 is it mandatory for the landlord to satisfy the test provided under Sub-section (3) regarding bona fides even for getting eviction u/s 11(4)(iii) also?

The revision Petitioner is the tenant. Respondents are the legal representatives of original landlord who filed R.C.P. No. 30/84 for evicting the Petitioner herein u/s 11(3) and (4)(iii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The rent control authority allowed the application for eviction on both grounds. On appeal, the appellate authority found that the landlord has not made out a case for eviction on the ground of bona fide need u/s 11(3), but at the same time eviction was ordered u/s 11(4)(iii). Aggrieved by the above order of the appellate authority, this revision petition is filed by the tenant.

Sub-section (1) of Section 11 provides that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract a tenant shall not be evicted, whether in execution of a decree or otherwise, except in accordance with the provisions of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The main portion of Section 11(3) reads as follows:

A landlord may apply to the Rent Control Court for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building if he bona fide needs the building for his own occupation or for the occupation by any member of his family dependent on him.

The above would show that the bona fide need of the building is a ground available to the landlord for evicting the tenant. Sub-section (4) of Section 11 also provides certain other grounds for the landlord to claim eviction of the tenant. The relevant portion of Section 11(4) reads as follows:

A landlord may apply to the Rent Control Court for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building:

(i) if the tenant after the commencement of this Act, without the consent of the landlord, transfers his right under the lease or sub-lets the entire building or any portion thereof if the lease does not confer on him any right to do so.....

(ii) if the tenant uses the building in such a manner as to destroy or reduce its value or utility materially and permanently; or

(iii) if the tenant already has in his possession a building or subsequently acquires possession of or puts up a building, reasonably sufficient for his requirements in the same city, town or village; or

(iv) if the building is in such a condition that it needs reconstruction and if the landlord requires bona fide to reconstruct the same and if he satisfies the Court that he has the plan and licence, if any required, and the ability to rebuild and if the proposal is not made as a pretext for eviction;....

(v) if the tenant ceases to occupy the building continuously for six months without reasonable cause.

Section 11 (7) and (8) read as follows:

(7) Where the landlord of a building is a religious, charitable, educational or other public institution, it may, if the building is needed for the purposes of the institution, apply to the Rent Control Court, for an order directing the tenant to put the institution in possession of the building.

(8) A landlord who is occupying only a part of a building may apply to the Rent Control Court for an order directing any tenant occupying the whole or any portion of the remaining part of the building to put the landlord in possession thereof, if he requires additional accommodation for his personal use.

Sub-section (10) reads as follows:

The Rent Control Court shall, if it is satisfied that the claim of the landlord under Sub-sections (3), (4), (7), or Sub-section (8) is bona fide make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building on such date as may be specified by the Rent Control Court, and if the Court is not so satisfied, it shall make an order rejecting the application.

The contention raised by the revision Petitioner is that the bona fides referred in Sub-section (10) of section 11 is the same as the bona fide need contemplated under Sub-section (3) of Section 11. It is contended on behalf of the revision Petitioner that since the bona fide need put forward by the landlord was found against by the appellate authority, no eviction should have been ordered u/s 11(4)(iii) of the Rent Control Act. According to him, it is obligatory on the part of a landlord who applies for eviction u/s 11(4)(iii) to prove that he has a bona fide need as contemplated by Sub-section (3) of Section 11 also.

We find it extremely difficult to accept the above contention put forward on behalf of the revision Petitioner. The bona fide need of a landlord for his own occupation or occupation of any member of his family depending on him is a separate ground for eviction. Under Sub-section (4), five different grounds are given which would also entitle a landlord to seek eviction of his tenant. The first ground Under Sub-section (4) is sub-lease without the consent of the landlord. The second ground relates to the tenant using the building in such a manner as to destroy or reduce its value etc. The third ground is one where the tenant has in his possession Anr. building reasonably sufficient for his requirement. If the Petitioner''s contention that in order to get eviction under the third ground, the landlord has to prove bona fide need of own occupation in view of the provision contained under Sub-section (10). Then, it would mean that the landlord has to prove such a bona fide need even when the tenant sub-lets the building of destroys or reduce its value. So also, even if the tenant ceases to occupy a building continuously for six months, which is the 5th ground under Sub-section (4), the landlord will not be able to seek eviction unless he requires for own occupation. Such an interpretation would certainly be absurd. On the other hand, the bona fides of the requirement of the landlord to re-construct the building is made a condition under the 4th ground under Sub-section (4) for eviction. The provisions contained under the Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act are meant not only for the benefit of the tenants and landlord, but it is meant for the benefit of the society at large. If a tenant ceases to occupy the building continuously for six months without reasonable cause, it has to be taken that he has no requirement for the tenanted building. It is certainly against public interest to keep a building vacant. It can be used either by the landlord himself or by Anr. tenant.

We are not inclined to give an interpretation to the provision contained under Sub-section (10) to mean that bona fide need for own occupation should arise for the landlord to seek eviction of a tenanted building on the ground of sub lease or on the ground that the building is being destroyed or reduced in value by the tenant or on the other grounds under Sub-section (4). The intention of the legislature in referring to the bona fides of the landlord under Sub-section (10) is only to make it clear that the application should not be for collateral purposes like enhancement of rent etc. We have therefore no hesitation to hold that a landlord who seeks eviction u/s 11(4)(iii) need not prove that he has a bona fide need for own occupation in addition to the conditions contained under Sub-clause (iii). We therefore hold that the contention raised by the revision Petitioner that the order of the appellate authority is vitiated due to non-consideration of the question whether the landlord has proved bona fide requirement for own occupation of the building while claiming eviction u/s 11(4)(iii) is unsustainable. No other contention was raised by the revision Petitioner while challenging the order passed by the appellate authority.

In the result, the revision petition fails and it stands dismissed.