T.R Parvathy Ammal v. V. Sankara Menon .

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioner is the owner of a building let out to the respondent. The petitioner filed a petition for eviction before the Rent Control Court, Palghat, under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (the Act). The respondent's counter stated the building was let for residence and for conducting a cycle shop, and that he depended on the income from that business; he also contended the petitioner did not bona fide require the building and that he was protected by the second proviso to Section 11(3).

The Rent Control Court dismissed the eviction petition, holding the petitioner did not bona fide require the building and that the respondent was protected by the second proviso. The petitioner appealed; the Appellate Authority allowed the appeal, held the petitioner did bona fide require the building, and concluded the respondent was not entitled to protection under the second proviso because it was not proved that no other suitable building was available in the locality; it therefore allowed eviction.

The respondent moved in revision before the District Judge, Palghat. The District Judge, although finding the petitioner's bona fide requirement, allowed the revision and dismissed the eviction petition holding the respondent entitled to the second proviso's protection. The petitioner filed this Civil Revision against the District Judge's order.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether a tenant of a residential building who resides there and conducts a trade or business, depending mainly on the income derived therefrom for his livelihood, can avail the protection of the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965.
2. Whether the District Judge had jurisdiction to interfere in revision under Section 20 of the Act in the circumstances of this case (implicit in the court's consideration of the District Judge's order).

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

• The petitioner sought eviction under Section 11(3) on the ground of bona fide requirement of the building for her own use.
• The petitioner contended that the respondent was not entitled to protection under the second proviso to Section 11(3).

Respondent's Arguments

• The respondent stated the building was let to him for residence and for conducting a cycle shop and that he resided there with his family.
• He contended that the petitioner did not bona fide require the building and that he was protected by the second proviso to Section 11(3) because he depended mainly on income from the business carried on in the building.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analysed the statutory text and the factual findings. It identified the operative language of the second proviso to Section 11(3), which prevents a Rent Control Court from directing possession where (a) the tenant depends for his livelihood mainly on income from a trade or business carried on in the building and (b) there is no other suitable building available in the locality for that person to carry on such trade or business.

Applying those conditions to the facts found, the court noted:

1. The building as described in the petition particulars (Rule 12 particulars) and not contradicted in the counter is a residential building; the respondent resides there with his family and conducts the cycle-hire business there. The presence of a business does not change the building's character from residential to non-residential.
2. Conversion of a residential building into a non-residential building requires written permission of the Accommodation Controller under Section 17 of the Act; no such permission was shown to exist. Therefore the building must be treated as residential for the purposes of the proviso.
3. One of the proviso's conditions concerns availability of a suitable building in the locality for the tenant to carry on his trade or business. The court interpreted this as referring to availability of a suitable non-residential building for carrying on the trade/business; the proviso is "unconcerned about the residential accommodation of the tenant."
4. Because the tenant occupied a residential building and the proviso's protection only operates where no suitable building is available in the locality to carry on the trade or business (i.e., where a non-residential building is not available), the tenant of a residential building carrying on business there will not be entitled to the proviso's protection merely because he resides there and conducts a business.

On that statutory interpretation and application to the facts, the court concluded the Appellate Authority's decision allowing eviction was legally correct. Consequently, the District Judge lacked jurisdiction to interfere in revision under Section 20 of the Act in respect of that order.

Holding and Implications

Petition allowed.

Holding:

• The court set aside the District Judge's impugned order and upheld the Appellate Authority's order allowing eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act.
• The respondent-tenant was given three months' time to vacate the building.
• The parties were ordered to suffer their costs.

Implications:

The direct effect is that the eviction ordered by the Appellate Authority will stand and the tenant must vacate within three months. The opinion does not purport to lay down a broader precedent beyond the statutory interpretation applied here; it decides the case on the basis that the second proviso to Section 11(3) does not protect a tenant of a residential building who carries on a business there when a suitable non-residential building for that business is available in the locality (and no conversion under Section 17 was shown). No additional broader implications were discussed in the opinion.

Petition allowed.