The Supreme Court has today dismissed an appeal filed by a tenant against the eviction order passed by the Kerala High Court which had granted him six months to vacate the premises.
The bench of Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice Sanjiv Khanna has heard V. Chitambaresh, counsel for the petitioner, and held that there is no merit in the present case and High Court has passed a very reasoned order. Thus, the Court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the High Court.
The tenant, N.S. Aboobacker Siddique, has challenged the order passed by the High Court of Kerala wherein Court has reversed the order passed by the lower court and ordered to vacate the premises in possession of petitioner.
V. Chitambaresh, counsel on behalf of the petitioner, has argued that eviction was sought on the ground of bona fide need, sub lease and misuse of the building. Eviction allowed by the revision court under Sec 11 (3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter refer to as “Act of 1965”) by revising the judgement of the appellate authority wherein court had dismissed the rent control petition.
He further argued that the crux of the issue is there is an injunction against the eviction in the Kerala Act when the landlord has another building of his own in his possession except in special circumstances. In the present case there are no such special circumstances and the High Court has placed its reliance on the order passed by the Apex Court which was passed on the basis of Delhi rent Control Act whose provisions are distinct from the Kerala Rent Control Act.
In fact, the order was passed in the revision petition which was filed before the High court by the present respondent to seek the eviction of the present petitioner from the tenanted premise by challenging: –
a) The judgement in RCA 33/2016 dated 13-04-2018 of District Court and Rent Control Appellate Tribunal.
b) The order in R.C.P 129/2014 dated 23-02-2016 of III Additional Munsiff & Rent control Court.
The revision petitioner is the landlord of a three storied building of which the tenanted premises form part of.
The ground floor of the building was let out to N.S. Aboobacker Siddique and Jaiprakash on monthly rent for business purpose under a joint tenancy arrangement.
After, sometime revision petitioner noticed that Jaiprakash stopped his business and left the tenanted premises.
Later, revision petitioner noticed that N.S. Aboobacker Siddique without the knowledge and consent of the revision petitioner sublet the tenanted premises to Kalam violating the conditions of the lease. He also noticed that N.S. Aboobacker Siddique and Jaiprakash used the scheduled building in such a manner as to destroy its value and utility materially and permanently.
Thereafter, revision petitioner asked them to vacate the tenanted premise as he along with his dependent son will require the tenanted premise for conducting business of floor tiles and sanitary wares. On refusal to vacate the premises Revision Petitioner filed a suit before the Rent Control Court, Ernakulam, seeking eviction of all three tenants under Sections11(3), 11(4)(i) and 11(4)(ii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965.
The Rent Control Court ordered eviction of all three only under Section 11(3) of the Act of 1965 and rejected grounds of eviction under Sections 11(4)(i) & 11(4)(ii) of the Act of 1965.
Being aggrieved by the order, N.S. Aboobacker Siddique went in appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Ernakulam which reversed the eviction order in R.C.P. No.129 of 2014.
Challenging the order of the Appellate Authority, revision petitioner filed the revision petition before the High Court.
The Hon’ble court set-aside the impugned order of Rent Control Appellate Authority in and allowed the eviction petition. The Hon’ble Court directed the tenants to surrender possession of the petition scheduled property to the revision petitioner.
Case name – N.S. Aboobacker Siddique vs. Vasantha Mallan
SLP(C) No. 4179/2020