IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 12TH NOVEMBER 2007 / 21ST KARTHIKA 1929 CRP.No. 1416 of 1995(A) --------------------------------------- RCA.143/1992 of D.C. & SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM RCP.87/1989 of II ADDL.M.C., ERNAKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS: 1. DENNY, AGED 35, S/O JOSEPH PINDIS, PANNIPPILLIL HOUSE, NADAMA VILLAGE, NADAMA DESOM, KANAYANNUR TALUK. 2. SARA, AGED 72, D/O ULAHANNAN, DO. DO. 3. JOSEPH PINDIS, AGED 69, S/O ULAHANNAN, DO. DO. BY ADV. SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: 1. VILASINI, AGED 58, W/O LATE VELAYUDHAN, AKKARAPARAMBIL, RESIDING AT CHOORAKKATT THEKKUMBHAGAM, TRIPUNITHURA. 2. UNNIKRISHNAN @ PONNA, AGED 38, S/O LATE VELAYUDHAN, DO. DO. 3. MURUKAN, AGED 35, DO. DO. DO. 4. DINESAN, AGED 31, DO. DO. DO. 5. RAMANI, AGED 29, W/O SHAJI PULIKUNNEL, KULASEKHARAPURAM VILLAGE, (VIA) KADUTHURUTHY. 6. M.V.UDAYAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 44, PROPRIETOR, PANT HOUSE, 1ST FLOOR, EVEREST HOTEL BUILDING, EAST FORT GATE, TRIPUNITHURA. 7. VENUGOPALAN, AGED 38, S/O KRISHNAN, SREEKALA MUSICALS, DO. DO. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.BALASUBRAMANYAN SRI.E.M.MURUGAN THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/11/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.Balakrishnan Nair & K.P.Balachandran, JJ. --------------------------------- C.R.P.No. 1416 of 1995 --------------------------------- ORDER Balakrishnan Nair, J. The landlords are the revision petitioners. The tenants are the respondents. The first petitioner sought eviction of the tenanted building for his bona fide occupation. He is a Civil Draftsman by profession and his business is housed in a small room, having an extent of 30 sq.ft., in a building owned by his father. The same was not convenient or suitable for his business purposes. So, he is in need of a large space. He is a dependent on the second and third respondents. The respondents are in possession of other buildings for shifting the business. They are not mainly depending on the income from the tenanted building. On the above pleadings, the revision petitioners filed an application, inter alia, under Section 11 CRP 1416/95 2 (3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for eviction of the respondents. The respondents resisted the application contending that the first petitioner is not depending upon the second petitioner in the matter of getting a building for his business. The first petitioner has no right, title or interest over the building. The same is owned by the second petitioner only. The third petitioner, who is the father of the first petitioner, is having several buildings in his possession. The claim put forward is not a bona fide need. They also claim that they are depending mainly on the income from the tenanted premises for their livelihood. No other buildings are available in the locality to shift their business. 2. The Rent Controller rejected the claim of the petitioners under Section 11(3) of the Act. The said authority found that the first petitioner is occupying the stair case room, having an extent of 30 sq.ft. The Rent Controller also noticed the CRP 1416/95 3 admission of the first petitioner, when he was examined as PW1, that initially he was occupying a very spacious hall belonging to his father. The hall, after re-construction, was divided into three rooms in the year 1989. They were allotted to different tenants. The first petitioner was given only the stair case room by his father. The above fact has been taken into account by the Rent Controller to arrive at a finding that the petitioner is not in need of additional space. If that be so, the space occupied by him earlier would not have been allotted to the tenants. Therefore, the Rent Controller rejected the claim of the petitioners. 3. The appellate authority also considered the matter and upheld the said finding of the Rent Controller. According to the appellate authority, the first petitioner is an Architect and Designer and he requires an office. The extent of area claimed by him is not required for that purpose. Though, in evidence, the first petitioner contended CRP 1416/95 4 that he is a contractor and is undertaking construction work, the same was not accepted, as the first petitioner do not have any such pleading in the Rent Control Petition. The appellate authority also noticed that he was occupying a large hall of the building owned by his father before the re-construction of the said building in the year 1989. After 1989, he was allotted only a small stair case room by his father. If he was in need of additional space, naturally, he would have retained a larger space. 4. The above findings of the authorities below are attacked by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners. According to him, the second petitioner has allotted the petition scheduled building to the first petitioner. Since he is going to be in possession of that large building, he was allotted only a small space in the re-constructed building of his father. Further, the learned counsel pointed out that it is for the landlord to decide what should be the extent of area required CRP 1416/95 5 by him. The tenant cannot dictate on this aspect. The learned counsel also relied on the decision of this Court in Madhava v. Pathumabi (2005 (3) KLT 369). The relevant portion of the said judgment, relied on by the learned counsel, reads as follows: “It is for the landlord to decide whether the space available is sufficient for the need. Of course, the Court can definitely consider whether the need put forward is bona fide. In that process, the Court may also consider whether the need put forward is only a ruse to evict the tenant. The Court cannot, and is not expected to, fix standards for the business purposes of the landlord, in a Rent Control Petition under Section 11(3). We do not say that the Court cannot take into account common knowledge and the evidence touching upon the business transactions in the locality in question. If the landlord says he heeds a building having 100 square feet for running a star hotel, CRP 1416/95 6 one can easily say that the need is not bona fide. Similarly, if the landlord wants to get vacant possession of a tenanted building having an area of 5000 sq. feet on the ground that he desires to conduct a milk booth or pan shop there; definitely one can say that the need is only a ruse to evict the tenant. The Court is not expected to embark upon an enquiry to find out whether the landlord would succeed in establishing the proposed business in the tenanted building. Adequacy of the space is a matter to be considered by the landlord. The tenant cannot have a dictatorial role in that assessment of the landlord. The Court need not hear the tenant on that aspect. The tenant could very well contend that the need put forward is not bona fide. To substantiate that contention, he can bring forth all relevant materials in evidence. The state of mind of the landlord in assessing his bona fide requirement need not agree with that of the CRP 1416/95 7 tenant; that is quite irrelevant in considering a case under Section 11(3) of the Act.” In the light of the above principles laid down by this Court, the learned counsel for the petitioners prayed for setting aside the findings of the authorities below under Section 11(3) of the Act. 5. We heard the learned counsel for the respondents also. The learned counsel took us through the evidence of PW1 and pointed out that the third petitioner, who is the father of the first petitioner, is in possession of several rooms. If the first petitioner was in actual need of a larger area, he could have occupied a larger area in the very same building or could have shifted his business to some other building owned by his father, which is in the same locality. So, the learned counsel pointed out that the first petitioner has decided to confine his business to the stair case room, having an extent of 30 sq.ft. CRP 1416/95 8 It would go to show that for his business the said area is sufficient. The learned counsel also pointed out that the tenanted building is a large building, having five rooms in the up stair portion, a large hall, two rooms, a kitchen and a corridor in the ground floor. The same is plainly unnecessary for the petitioner, it is submitted. 6. Going by the schedule of the Rent Control Petition, we notice that the building, in which the hotel is housed, is a large building. As per the description of the scheduled building it is a two storied building. The first floor is having five rooms with electricity connection and a veranda. In the ground floor, there is a front side hall and two rooms behind the hall. A kitchen as well as two corridors are there on the northern and southern sides. So, it is clearly a large building. Of course, it is for the first petitioner to decide on his requirement. But, the said requirement should have some rational proportion to the business run by him. In the CRP 1416/95 9 decision Madhava v. Pathumabi (cited supra) this Court held that if a landlord claims a building, having an extent of 100 sq.ft. for running a star hotel, the same cannot be said to be bona fide. Similarly, eviction of a building having an area of 5000 sq.ft. is sought on the ground that he desires to conduct a milk booth or pan shop there, the same can also be described as a ruse to evict the tenant. In the light of the principles laid down in that decision, we are of the view that the view taken by the authorities below is a plausible view on the facts of this case. The petitioner, even in the face of ready availability of space in the re- constructed building, has decided to confine his business to a small stair case room, having an extent of 30 sq.ft. So, normally, it can be assumed that the space was sufficient to him to meet his requirements. Of course, the landlords have got an explanation, ie., he was going to get a larger building occupied by the tenants. Suppose, if we are exercising the appellate power, we may take a CRP 1416/95 10 different view. But the difference in opinion is not a ground to invoke the revisional power. Therefore, we are of the view that this is not a fit case, where interference with the finding of fact made by the authorities below is warranted, invoking this Court's power under Section 20 of the Act. The finding of the authorities below is a plausible view on fact. We agree with their reasons and conclusions. In the result, the revision petition fails and it is dismissed. No costs. (K.Balakrishnan Nair, Judge) 12th November, 2007 (K.P.Balachandran, Judge) tkv CRP 1416/95 11 K.Balakrishnan Nair & K.P.Balachandran, JJ. ---------------------- C.R.P.No.1416 of 1995 ---------------------- ORDER 12th November, 2007