Kerala High Court
RCRev./220/2024 of PERINGALI SATHEESH KUMAR Vs T. P. DINESH BABU on 10 April 2025
R.C.Rev. No.220 of 2024 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 20TH CHAITHRA, 1947 RCREV. NO. 220 OF 2024 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 26.06.2024
2025:KER:31316
R.C.Rev. No.220 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 20TH CHAITHRA, 1947
RCREV. NO. 220 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 26.06.2024 IN RCA NO.44 OF
2022 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT - II, THALASSERY ARISING
OUT OF THE ORDER DATED 05.02.2022 IN RCP NO.17 OF 2017 OF
MUNSIF COURT, KUTHUPARAMBA
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:
PERINGALI SATHEESH KUMAR, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O.
SANKARAN NAMBIAR, AMAL MEDICAL SHOP, ROOM NO.
XIII 639, A1, NEW BUS STAND, IRITTY TALUK, IRITTY, NOW RESIDING AT G.S. BHAVAN, VALORA, ULIYIL P.O., KANNUR, PIN – 670 702
BY ADVS.
NISHA GEORGE
SIDHARTH.R.WARIYAR
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PETITOINER:
T. P. DINESH BABU, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O. M. V.
KUNHIRAMAN, RESIDING AT SREENILAYAM, PAZHAYAPALAM
ROAD, IRITTY, IRITTY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN
– 670 703
2025:KER:31316
R.C.Rev. No.220 of 2024
BY ADVS.
K.V.PAVITHRAN
JAYANANDAN MADAYI PUTHIYAVEETTIL(K/572/2004)
JITHIN S SUNDARAN(K/000967/2016)
ADARSH KURIAN(K/154/2020)
THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 10.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:31316
R.C.Rev. No.220 of 2024
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
O R D E R
A. Muhamed Mustaque, J. In this revision petition, the tenant questions an order under Section 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short, “Act”). The main contention raised by the tenant is that the area where the tenanted premises located was originally within the panchayath Keezhur-Chavessary Panchayath, and thereafter, it was converted as Municipality. It is submitted that notification under the Act was in respect of the area when it was located within the Panchayath, and there was no further notification when it was converted as a Municipality. It is further contended that both the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority committed grave error in analysing the bona fide need of the landlord. It is submitted that the need projected was for the occupation of his daughter. She had not completed BDS even after nine years, and there is no likelihood of her occupying this building for starting a dental clinic. In regard to the question of maintainability of the rent control petition, this Court in respect
2025:KER:31316 R.C.Rev. No.220 of 2024
of the same, in O.P. (RC) No.16 of 2025, held as follows: “Under Section 1(3) of the Act, Notification is in respect of the area and not based on the nature of the local authority. Once the area is notified, whether it later becomes Panchayat, or Corporation has no impact unless the area is excluded by separate Notification or exempted under Section 25 of the Act.” In the light of the above, the objection regarding maintainability is legally unsustainable. In regard to the other question, it is a matter of appreciation of facts. Both the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority found that the need is bona finde in the light of the fact that the landlord requires the buildings for the occupation of his daughter, who is a BDS student. It is not for this Court to upset the findings of fact in the revisional jurisdiction unless such findings of fact is so perverse. There is nothing on record to show that the landlord has any mala fide intention in seeking eviction. It has come on record that the tenant is also not entitled to have protection under the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. In such circumstances, this revision petition is dismissed. However, we grant time up to 31.12.2025 on the following terms and conditions:
(i) An undertaking shall be filed before the Rent
2025:KER:31316 R.C.Rev. No.220 of 2024
Control Court, within four weeks from today, that the petitioner- tenant will vacate the building within the time granted.
(ii) The entire arrears, if any, shall be cleared within four weeks and continue to pay the monthly rent up-to- date till the actual surrender of the building. Sd/- A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE Sd/- P. KRISHNA KUMAR JUDGE PR
2025:KER:31316 R.C.Rev. No.220 of 2024
APPENDIX OF RCREV. 220/2024 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure 1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 05.02.2022 IN R.C.P 17 OF 2017 ON THE FILES OF THE RENT CONTROL COURT (MUNSIFF), KUTHUPARAMBA Annexure 1 Certified copy of the Order dated 05.02.2022 in RCP No. 17/2017 passed by the Hon'ble Court of the Rent Controller (Munsiff) of Kuthuparamba.