THE TENANT CANNOT DICTATE TERMS ON THE LANDLORD AND IT IS THE LANDLORD WHO HAS TO DECIDE HOW HE HAS TO MAKE USE OF HIS BUILDING:KERALA HIGH COURT
The High Court of Kerala passed a judgement on 13 March, 2023 stated that The tenant cannot dictate terms on the landlord and it is the landlord who has to decide how he has to make use of his building. It was stated in the case of M/S.Sudharma Metropolis Health Service Pvt.Ltd vs R.Mani Kumar (Rent Control Revision No.358 of 2019) which was passed by the division bench comprising of JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR and JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS
FACTS OF THE CASE:
The landlord filed RCP No.18 of 2015 before the Rent Control Court, Alappuzha, for evicting the tenant under Sections 11(3), 11 (4)(iii) and 11(4)(v) of the Act. The Rent Control Court, though found the bonafide need of the landlord, for the petition schedule building for starting a scan centre, it was also found that the landlord was in possession of other rooms in the very same building conducive for staring a scan centre, and no special reasons were shown for getting possession of the petition schedule room after evicting the tenant. So, giving the benefit of the first proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act, the Rent Control Court rejected the prayer of the landlord for eviction under Section 11(3). Regarding the prayer under Sections 11(4)(iii) and 11(4)(v) of the Act, the Rent Control Court found that the tenant acquired a suitable building reasonably sufficient for their requirement, very near to the petition schedule building and moreover, the tenant ceased to occupy the building for more than six months without any reasonable cause. So, the eviction prayed for under Sections 11(4)(iii) and 11(4)(v) was allowed by the Rent control Court.The tenant, aggrieved by the order of eviction under Sections 11(4)(iii) and 11(4)(v) of the Act, preferred RCA No.25 of 2017 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Alappuzha. The landlord, aggrieved by the dismissal of his prayer for eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act, preferred a cross objection in that appeal. The Rent Control Appellate Authority, on analysing the facts and evidence and also on hearing the rival contentions raised from either side, dismissed the appeal of the tenant as well as the cross objection of the landlord, upholding the order of eviction under Sections 11(4)(iii) and 11(4)(v) of the Act. Against the dismissal of the appeal, the tenant has come up with this revision.
JUDGEMENT OF THE CASE
The court deemed it appropriate to grant six months time to the tenant to surrender vacant possession of the premises, on condition that the tenant shall file an affidavit before the Rent Control Court within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, unconditionally undertaking to vacate the tenanted premises within six months, and agreeing to pay the arrears of rent, if any, within one month and to continue payment of the monthly rent before the due date, till they vacate the premises.With these directions, the Rent Control Revision was dismissed.
PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY ROSHNI SABU, KERALA LAW ACADEMY LAW COLLEGE.