Only Such Subsequent Events That Completely Negate Landlord's Needs Are Decisive For Overturning Eviction Order: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court has made it clear that only those subsequent events that completely negate the landlord's needs could be considered as decisive for overturning an already passed eviction order.The Court stated that generally rights and obligations of the parties are assessed based on the circumstances at the time the legal proceedings began but, there are exceptions to this general rule. The Division Bench of Justice A.Muhamed Mustaque And Justice P. Krishna Kumar thus stated that for an eviction order to be overturned, it must be shown that these subsequent events have completely eclipsed landlord's need for the premises. Court stated, “it is contended by the tenant that the finding of the Appellate Authority - that the crucial period for determining the landlord's bona fide need is the date on which the eviction petition was filed - is erroneous. True, there are exceptions to the general rule that the rights and obligations of the parties are to be determined as they were when the lis commenced. While it is correct to say that the landlord's requirement must continue throughout the litigation and exist on the date of the order of the final Court, the true test for assessing the impact of subsequent events on such requirements is a different aspect. Only those subsequent events which completely eclipse the need of the landlord, are decisive for overturning the eviction order, if any, already passed. If that is not the situation, the court can proceed on the basis of the aforesaid general rule.”In this revision petition, tenant challenged an eviction order issued by the Rent Control Appellate Authority under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The Eviction order stated that the landlords are entitled to get possession of petition-scheduled building since they bonafidely need the building to start their own hardware business.As per facts, the Eviction Petition was filed as early as in 1997. It was dismissed by the Rent Control Court on finding that landlords have no bonafide needs. On appeal, the Rent Control Appellate Authority found in favour of the landlords and ordered eviction. In appeal, the High Court remanded the matter back to Trial Court for taking fresh evidence. The Rent Control Court again found that the landlords were not entitled to get eviction since they were in possession of other vacant rooms also which they could use for their business. Subsequently, the Rent Control Appellate Authority found in favor of the landlords, which is challenged in this revision petition. The Petitioner relied upon an Advocate Commission Report to contend that landlords have several other vacant rooms in possession for starting their business.The Court stated that neither the tenant nor the Court could command the landlords that they should alter the structure of their existing vacant premises to start a new business.The Court observed that the landlords might be hesitant to undertake conversion of their existing vacant premises to start a new business since that might require significant structural alterations needing money. Court thus stated that landlords may have several justifications for not using vacant building in their possession and these are matters which are exclusively within the domain of the landlords and not with the Courts. The Court also negated the contention that two rooms of the landlords became vacant in the first floor of the building. It stated that the tenant was not successful in showing that those rooms were sufficient for starting landlord's new business. The Court noted that landlords subsequently obtained a building which could not be used for starting their business unless structural alterations are carried out. In the facts of the case, the Court thus concluded that no subsequent events took place that could eclipse the landlord's needs for overturning the eviction order.The Court further stated that the tenant who alleges that the landlords acquired another suitable building subsequently has the onus establish it. As such, the Court upheld the order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority that the landlords bonafidely require the vacant possession of the tenanted premises for their new business. Accordingly, the revision petition was dismissed. Counsel for Revision Petitioner: Advocates Meena A, Kurian Antony Edassery, Vinod Ravindranath, K C Kiran, M.R.Mini, Anish Antony Anathazhath, Thareeq Anver K, Nivedhitha Prem VCounsel for Respondents: Advocates Sadchith P Kurup, C.P.Anil Raj, Siva Suresh, B.Sreedevi, Athira VijayanCase Title: P.M. Ismail v AbbasCase No: RCREV. NO. 165 OF 2024Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 172Click here to read/download Order

Only Such Subsequent Events That Completely Negate Landlord's Needs Are Decisive For Overturning Eviction Order: Kerala High Court

Tellmy Jolly

Tags