Monthly Archives: September 2013

Fixation of fair rent


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI

THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL 2013/21ST CHAITHRA 1935

R.C.Rev.No.140 of 2013 ()
————————–
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN RCA.NO.115/2011 OF II ADDL.DISTRICT COURT,
ERNAKULAM DATED 29-10-2012 AGAINST THE ORDER IN RCP.105/2010 OF III
ADDL.M.C.EKM (RENT CONTROL)

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT IN RCP :
—————————————————————————————–

T.K.CHANDY, AGED 80 YEARS,
S/O. P.K.ABRAHAM, CC DOOR NO.37/3470,
PONOTH SHOPPING COMPLEX, KALOOR, KOCHI-17.

BY ADVS.SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE (MANACHIRACKEL),
SRI.P.R.MILTON.

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT IN RCA/PETITIONER IN RCP:
—————————————————————————————–

O.K.JAYADEVI, AGED 90 YEARS.
W/O. LATE P.K.SREEDHARAN, PONOTH SHOPPING COMPLEX,
KALOOR, KOCHI-17.

BY ADV. SRI.R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN (CAVEATOR).

THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-04-2013,
ALONG WITH R.C.R.NOS.157 & 158 OF 2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED
THE FOLLOWING:

T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
&
A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JJ.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
R.C.R. Nos.140, 157 & 158 of 2013
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 11th day of April, 2013

ORDER
Ramachandran Nair, J.

All these revision petitions have been filed by the tenant of a building

aggrieved by the order of eviction as well as the fixation of fair rent. Among

these revision petitions, R.C.R No.140 of 2013 is mainly concerned with the

order of eviction and other two revision petitions namely, R.C.R.Nos.157 and

158 of 2013 are concerned with the fixation of rent.

2. We heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner Sri.George

Varghese and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Sri.Lakshmi

Narayanan.

3. The R.C.P was preferred by the respondent under Sections 11(3)

and 11(4)(iii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 and

the Rent Control Court allowed eviction on both the grounds. In the appeal,

the said findings have been confirmed by the Appellate Authority also.

4. We find from the narration of the facts that the bona fide need put

forward is for the purpose of starting a business of stationary and gift articles

for the son of the landlady Sri.P.S.Suresh Babu. It was also submitted that

RCRs.140, 157 & 158/13.                2

his son Sri.Brijith Babu will also join in the said business, as he is not having

permanent source of income.

5. On the evidence adduced by the landlady by way of examination of

Sri.Suresh Babu as PW1, after analysing the reports of the Commissioner

produced as Ext.C1 and on a discussion of the evidence adduced by the tenant

the courts found that the bona fide need pleaded is genuine.

6. In a matter like this where the dependent son’s need is projected,

the courts will have to find out whether the need alleged is genuine or not and

in the light of the evidence of PW1, it was found in favour of the landlady.

7. The petition schedule building consists of two rooms in the ground

floor of ‘Ponoth Shopping complex’ at Kaloor, facing Aluva-Ernakulam Main

Road, having an area of 600 sq. feet.      One of the aspects pointed out by the

tenant was that the son is not depending on the landlady. It was also

contended that he is getting `16,000/- as his share of rent for the first floor of

the building. But, it was found in the appeal that there was no challenge with

regard to the finding that the landlady and her son have no building in their

possession. The court, therefore, found that the dependency provided is not

financial dependency and the question that should be considered is whether

the family members are dependent on the landlady for the building.

Accordingly, the plea was accepted by both the courts.

RCRs.140, 157 & 158/13.              3

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.George Varghese submitted

that after the appeal was disposed of, Sri.Suresh Babu expired and therefore,

in the light of the said subsequent event, the need projected does not subsist.

9. It is explained by the learned counsel for the respondent that the

need projected is that of the dependent son along with the son of the now

deceased son and, therefore, the death of the son namely PW1 will not have

any impact. We have perused the details of the averments also. As we have

already noted the fact that the son was dependent on the mother was proved

in evidence, the business proposed to be done was with the participation of

the grandson also. It is also pleaded that it is for the income of the family that

the need is projected. In the light of the above, we cannot agree with the

contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the subsequent event

totally eclipses the need projected under Section 11(3). Therefore the said

contention also cannot help the petitioner.

10. With regard to the finding under Section 11(4)(iii), it can be seen

that the plea was that the tenant has acquired two rooms in Jawaharlal Nehru

International Stadium, Kaloor. The respondent admitted that he acquired two

rooms and they are being used as a godown. The same has been proved in

evidence also. It has two shuttered rooms having an area of 450 sq. feet, as

noted by the Advocate Commissioner. It is situated half kilometre away from

RCRs.140, 157 & 158/13.                 4

the main road, but within the premises of the Stadium. We find that the Rent

Control Court considered the report of the Advocate Commissioner, who gave

evidence that vehicles can be parked in the area. She also noticed a service

centre of ‘Honda Activa’ near the building. She also noticed other vehicles

parked in the road surrounding the stadium. Accordingly, it was found that the

alleged inconvenience due to insufficiency of parking space itself is not

sufficient to reject the claim of the landlady under the section. The said view

was confirmed by the Appellate Authority also.

11. We are of the view that the finding on the said issue is based on the

evidence and it does not call for any interference in exercise of the revisional

jurisdiction of this Court. Therefore, on both grounds landlady is entitled to

succeed. Accordingly, we dismiss R.C.R.No.140 of 2013.

12. In R.C.R Nos.157 and 158 of 2013, the issue projected is regarding

the fixation of fair rent for the building. The Rent Control Court has fixed the

rent at `33/- per sq. feet. This has been enhanced by the Appellate Authority

to `40/-per sq. feet.

13. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is an

increase by 105% when the percentage is reckoned. The learned counsel for

the respondent submitted that the assessment cannot be said to be

unreasonable in the light of the importance of the locality, amenities and

RCRs.140, 157 & 158/13.              5

other factors. The building is situated at Kaloor, one of the important places

in the city. It is a place having commercial importance also.

14. After having heard the parties, we feel that the amount can be fixed

at a lump sum of `20,000/- per month, which will satisfy the requirement of

both sides. Accordingly, we modify the orders passed by the Rent Control

Court and by the Appellate Authority in R.C.P.No.115 of 2011, 145 of 2011

and 152 of 2011.

15. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that an

amount of `50,000/- has been deposited during the pendency of the appeal.

The same will be adjusted towards the arrears of rent. It is also submitted that

the an amount of `80,000/- has been give an security deposit which according

to the learned counsel for the petitioner will have also has to be adjusted. As

rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent, the same will be

returned to the petitioner at the time of vacating the building.

In the result, we dispose of these revision petitions as under:

1. R.C.R.No.140 of 2013 is dismissed.

2. R.C.R.Nos.157 & 158 of 2013 are disposed of fixing the monthly

rent at `20,000/- in modification of the orders of the authorities

below with effect from 1.7.2010.

RCRs.140, 157 & 158/13.              6

3. The entire arrears of rent as on today will be deposited within a

period of two months from today and the receipt thereof shall be

produced before the Rent Control Court or the Execution court as

the case may be, without fail;.

4. The revision petitioner will file an affidavit on or before 25.5.2013

before the Execution Court or the Rent Control Court as the case

may be, undertaking to surrender vacant possession of the petition

schedule building peacefully to the landlady on or before

31.12.2013 and he will continue to pay occupational charges at the

rent at the rate of `20,000/- till the date of actual surrender of the

building to the landlady.

We make it clear that the tenant will get the benefit of time

granted as above, only if he files the affidavit on time and honours the

undertakings contained therein.

sd/-
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
JUDGE

sd/-
A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI
JUDGE

Fixation of fair rent


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI

THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL 2013/21ST CHAITHRA 1935

R.C.Rev.No.140 of 2013 ()
————————–
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN RCA.NO.115/2011 OF II ADDL.DISTRICT COURT,
ERNAKULAM DATED 29-10-2012 AGAINST THE ORDER IN RCP.105/2010 OF III
ADDL.M.C.EKM (RENT CONTROL)

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT IN RCP :
—————————————————————————————–

T.K.CHANDY, AGED 80 YEARS,
S/O. P.K.ABRAHAM, CC DOOR NO.37/3470,
PONOTH SHOPPING COMPLEX, KALOOR, KOCHI-17.

BY ADVS.SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE (MANACHIRACKEL),
SRI.P.R.MILTON.

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT IN RCA/PETITIONER IN RCP:
—————————————————————————————–

O.K.JAYADEVI, AGED 90 YEARS.
W/O. LATE P.K.SREEDHARAN, PONOTH SHOPPING COMPLEX,
KALOOR, KOCHI-17.

BY ADV. SRI.R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN (CAVEATOR).

THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-04-2013,
ALONG WITH R.C.R.NOS.157 & 158 OF 2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED
THE FOLLOWING:

T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
&
A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JJ.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
R.C.R. Nos.140, 157 & 158 of 2013
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 11th day of April, 2013

ORDER
Ramachandran Nair, J.

All these revision petitions have been filed by the tenant of a building

aggrieved by the order of eviction as well as the fixation of fair rent. Among

these revision petitions, R.C.R No.140 of 2013 is mainly concerned with the

order of eviction and other two revision petitions namely, R.C.R.Nos.157 and

158 of 2013 are concerned with the fixation of rent.

2. We heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner Sri.George

Varghese and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Sri.Lakshmi

Narayanan.

3. The R.C.P was preferred by the respondent under Sections 11(3)

and 11(4)(iii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 and

the Rent Control Court allowed eviction on both the grounds. In the appeal,

the said findings have been confirmed by the Appellate Authority also.

4. We find from the narration of the facts that the bona fide need put

forward is for the purpose of starting a business of stationary and gift articles

for the son of the landlady Sri.P.S.Suresh Babu. It was also submitted that

RCRs.140, 157 & 158/13.                2

his son Sri.Brijith Babu will also join in the said business, as he is not having

permanent source of income.

5. On the evidence adduced by the landlady by way of examination of

Sri.Suresh Babu as PW1, after analysing the reports of the Commissioner

produced as Ext.C1 and on a discussion of the evidence adduced by the tenant

the courts found that the bona fide need pleaded is genuine.

6. In a matter like this where the dependent son’s need is projected,

the courts will have to find out whether the need alleged is genuine or not and

in the light of the evidence of PW1, it was found in favour of the landlady.

7. The petition schedule building consists of two rooms in the ground

floor of ‘Ponoth Shopping complex’ at Kaloor, facing Aluva-Ernakulam Main

Road, having an area of 600 sq. feet.      One of the aspects pointed out by the

tenant was that the son is not depending on the landlady. It was also

contended that he is getting `16,000/- as his share of rent for the first floor of

the building. But, it was found in the appeal that there was no challenge with

regard to the finding that the landlady and her son have no building in their

possession. The court, therefore, found that the dependency provided is not

financial dependency and the question that should be considered is whether

the family members are dependent on the landlady for the building.

Accordingly, the plea was accepted by both the courts.

RCRs.140, 157 & 158/13.              3

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.George Varghese submitted

that after the appeal was disposed of, Sri.Suresh Babu expired and therefore,

in the light of the said subsequent event, the need projected does not subsist.

9. It is explained by the learned counsel for the respondent that the

need projected is that of the dependent son along with the son of the now

deceased son and, therefore, the death of the son namely PW1 will not have

any impact. We have perused the details of the averments also. As we have

already noted the fact that the son was dependent on the mother was proved

in evidence, the business proposed to be done was with the participation of

the grandson also. It is also pleaded that it is for the income of the family that

the need is projected. In the light of the above, we cannot agree with the

contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the subsequent event

totally eclipses the need projected under Section 11(3). Therefore the said

contention also cannot help the petitioner.

10. With regard to the finding under Section 11(4)(iii), it can be seen

that the plea was that the tenant has acquired two rooms in Jawaharlal Nehru

International Stadium, Kaloor. The respondent admitted that he acquired two

rooms and they are being used as a godown. The same has been proved in

evidence also. It has two shuttered rooms having an area of 450 sq. feet, as

noted by the Advocate Commissioner. It is situated half kilometre away from

RCRs.140, 157 & 158/13.                 4

the main road, but within the premises of the Stadium. We find that the Rent

Control Court considered the report of the Advocate Commissioner, who gave

evidence that vehicles can be parked in the area. She also noticed a service

centre of ‘Honda Activa’ near the building. She also noticed other vehicles

parked in the road surrounding the stadium. Accordingly, it was found that the

alleged inconvenience due to insufficiency of parking space itself is not

sufficient to reject the claim of the landlady under the section. The said view

was confirmed by the Appellate Authority also.

11. We are of the view that the finding on the said issue is based on the

evidence and it does not call for any interference in exercise of the revisional

jurisdiction of this Court. Therefore, on both grounds landlady is entitled to

succeed. Accordingly, we dismiss R.C.R.No.140 of 2013.

12. In R.C.R Nos.157 and 158 of 2013, the issue projected is regarding

the fixation of fair rent for the building. The Rent Control Court has fixed the

rent at `33/- per sq. feet. This has been enhanced by the Appellate Authority

to `40/-per sq. feet.

13. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is an

increase by 105% when the percentage is reckoned. The learned counsel for

the respondent submitted that the assessment cannot be said to be

unreasonable in the light of the importance of the locality, amenities and

RCRs.140, 157 & 158/13.              5

other factors. The building is situated at Kaloor, one of the important places

in the city. It is a place having commercial importance also.

14. After having heard the parties, we feel that the amount can be fixed

at a lump sum of `20,000/- per month, which will satisfy the requirement of

both sides. Accordingly, we modify the orders passed by the Rent Control

Court and by the Appellate Authority in R.C.P.No.115 of 2011, 145 of 2011

and 152 of 2011.

15. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that an

amount of `50,000/- has been deposited during the pendency of the appeal.

The same will be adjusted towards the arrears of rent. It is also submitted that

the an amount of `80,000/- has been give an security deposit which according

to the learned counsel for the petitioner will have also has to be adjusted. As

rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent, the same will be

returned to the petitioner at the time of vacating the building.

In the result, we dispose of these revision petitions as under:

1. R.C.R.No.140 of 2013 is dismissed.

2. R.C.R.Nos.157 & 158 of 2013 are disposed of fixing the monthly

rent at `20,000/- in modification of the orders of the authorities

below with effect from 1.7.2010.

RCRs.140, 157 & 158/13.              6

3. The entire arrears of rent as on today will be deposited within a

period of two months from today and the receipt thereof shall be

produced before the Rent Control Court or the Execution court as

the case may be, without fail;.

4. The revision petitioner will file an affidavit on or before 25.5.2013

before the Execution Court or the Rent Control Court as the case

may be, undertaking to surrender vacant possession of the petition

schedule building peacefully to the landlady on or before

31.12.2013 and he will continue to pay occupational charges at the

rent at the rate of `20,000/- till the date of actual surrender of the

building to the landlady.

We make it clear that the tenant will get the benefit of time

granted as above, only if he files the affidavit on time and honours the

undertakings contained therein.

sd/-
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
JUDGE

sd/-
A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI
JUDGE

Comparative Hardship


The Supreme Court of India in a landmark judgment analyzed the hardship that may be caused to the tenant while being evicted and the building owner while denying his building for his own occupation and said that “In our opinion, the hardship appellants would suffer by not occupying their own premises would be far grater than the hardship the respondent would suffer by having to move out to another place. We are mindful of the fact that whenever the tenant is asked to move out of the premises some hardship is inherent. We have noted that the respondent is in occupation of the premises for a long time. But in our opinion, in the facts of this case that circumstance cannot be the sole determinative factor. That hardship can be mitigated by granting him longer period to move out of the premises in his occupation so that in the meantime he can make alternative arrangement.”

Full text of the judgment is given below for perusal
Mohd. Ayub & Anr. vs Mukesh Chand on 5 January, 2012
Bench: Aftab Alam, Ranjana Prakash Desai

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4495 OF 2006

MOHD. AYUB & ANR. … APPELLANTS Versus

MUKESH CHAND … RESPONDENT JUDGMENT

(SMT.) RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J.

1. This appeal, by grant of special leave, is directed against the judgment and order dated 12.9.2005 passed by the High Court of Uttaranchal at Nainital partly allowing the Writ Petition No. 296 of 2004 filed by the appellants.

2. The appellants/landlords filed an application under Section 21 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (for short, `the U.P Act’) for eviction of the respondent/tenant on the ground that they bona fide required the premises occupied by the respondent to start business for their sons.

3. According to the appellants when the house in question was purchased by them the respondent was occupying two shops facing the road and two rooms situate at the rear of the said shops as a tenant of the previous landlord at the rent of Rs.35/- per month. These rooms are situated on the ground floor of the said building. The respondent continued to occupy the said rooms as tenant at the same rent. It is the case of the appellants that the first appellant is carrying on business in three small stalls situated in a shop of the Cantonment Council, the rent of which keeps increasing. The three sons of the appellants aged 23, 28 and 19 years are unemployed. Two sons want to start general merchant business in one shop and the third son wants to start wholesale egg business in the other shop. The appellants’ family consists of 13 members. Their one son is married and has three children and the two other sons are of a marriageable age. The married son wants to live in the room behind the shop. Presently, the appellants’ family is living in three rooms and a verandah with great difficulty. On these grounds the appellants filed the application for release of the rooms in occupation of the respondent.

4. In response, the respondent inter alia contended that he is conducting photography business from the said shops for many years; that he is enjoying goodwill in the area; that he will find it difficult to get premises in the same area; that appellants are financially well off as compared to him; that they own other properties and that greater hardship would be caused to the respondent if the decree of eviction is passed than that would be caused to the appellants if it is not passed.

5. The Prescribed Authority dismissed the application holding inter alia that the appellants are financially sound and other properties were available to them whereas except the suit shops the respondent does not have any place for residence and business and hence, if he is evicted from the shops in his occupation, he will experience more difficulty. The appeal carried from the said judgment was dismissed by the District Court holding inter alia that financial position of the appellants is far better than that of the respondent. They could have purchased a vacant bungalow and started business for their sons. Learned District Judge held that the appellants have purchased the building to make profit and then filed the application for eviction. According to learned District Judge, the respondent was doing business from the said shops for many years and it would be difficult for him to find a place for business. Hardship caused to the respondent would be more.

6. While disposing of the petition filed by the appellants the High Court rightly held that the landlord cannot be dictated by the tenant what business his sons should do and the observations made by the courts below to that effect and the findings reached by the courts below on bona fide requirement of the landlord are perverse. However, without going into the aspect of comparative hardship, the High Court directed that only one room out of the four rooms should be handed over to the appellants by the respondent as from the affidavit it appears that the respondent was using it as a passage. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellants have approached this Court.

7. Shri Vijay Hansaria, learned senior counsel, appearing for the appellants submitted that having come to the conclusion that the need of the appellants was genuine, the High Court erred in directing the respondent to only handover one room to the appellants. The High Court has wrongly granted only partial relief to the appellants without going into the aspect of comparative hardship. In support of his submissions, learned counsel relied on Raghunath G. Panhale (Dead) by Lrs. v. Chaganlal Sundarji & Co.
1,Bhimanagouda Basanagouda Patil v. Mohd. Gudusaheb
2, Ganga Devi v. District Judge, Nainital & Or
s. 3

1 (1999) 8 SCC 1

2 (2003) 3 SCC 101

3 (2008) 7 SCC 770

8. Shri Achal Chabbra, learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted that the High Court has balanced the interest of both sides and hence no interference is necessary with the impugned judgment.

9. There is no challenge to the High Court’s finding that the appellants’ requirement is bona fide. The respondent has not assailed the High Court’s order. We concur with the High Court on this point. However, the High Court erroneously held that the view expressed by the courts below that greater comparative hardship would be caused to the respondent if decree of eviction is passed is correct so far as two rooms occupied by him for residence and one room in which he is running a shop is concerned. The High Court observed that no hardship will be caused to the respondent if one room is directed to be handed over to the appellants because it was used as a passage by the respondent. Surprisingly, the High Court has not given any reasons why only partial relief was being granted to the appellants. In fact, it has not discussed the issue of comparative hardship at all. Since this issue is of utmost relevance and the application of the appellants is of the year 1998, we proceed to deal with it.

10. Section 21 (1) (a) of the U.P. Act provides for eviction of a tenant on the ground of bona fide requirement of the landlord. The fourth proviso thereof states that the Prescribed Authority shall take into account the likely hardship to the tenant from the grant of the application as against the likely hardship to the landlord from the refusal of the application and for that purpose shall have regard to such factors as may be prescribed.

11. Rule 16 (2) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972 ( for short, `the said Rules’) states which facts the Prescribed Authority has to consider while dealing with an application for release under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the U.P. Act. Rule 16 (2) refers to building let out for purpose of any business and the facts which have to be taken into consideration are: (a) length of tenancy of the tenant; (b) availability of suitable accommodation for tenant; (c) whether the landlords existing business is more flourishing than that which is proposed to be set up by him in the leased premises and (d) need of self-employment of a son or married or unmarried or widowed or divorced or judicially separated daughter or daughter or a male lineal descendant of the landlord who has completed his or her technical education and who is not employed in government service.

12. In Ganga Devi this Court held that comparative hardship indisputably is a relevant factor for determining the question as to whether the requirement of the landlord is bona fide or not within the meaning of the provisions of the U.P. Act and the said Rules and it is essentially a question of fact. This Court observed that Rule 16 provides for some factors which are required to be taken into consideration. This Court clarified that the court would not determine the question only on the basis of sympathy or sentiment. This Court referred to its judgment in Bhagwan Das v. Jiley Kumar where it is observed that the outweighing circumstance in favour of the landlord was that two of her sons after completing their education were unemployed and wanted to carry on business for self-employment. This Court further observed that there was an additional circumstance that the tenant had not brought on record any material to indicate that at any time during the pendency of this long drawn out litigation he had made any attempt to seek an alternative accommodation and was unable to get it. This Court also referred to its judgment in Rishi Kumar Govil v. Maqsoodan where it has particularly taken note of the fact that the landlady had no other shop where she can establish her son who is married and unemployed and there was nothing on record to indicate that the business of the father was huge or flourishing. This Court clarified that the length of the period of tenancy as provided under clause (a) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 16 of the said Rules is only one of the factors to be taken into account in context with other 4 (1991) supp. (2) SCC 3005 (2007) 4 SCC 465 facts and circumstances of the case and cannot be a sole criterion or deciding factor to order or not the eviction. This Court held that in the circumstances of the case the balance tilted in favour of the unemployed son of the landlady whose need is certainly bona fide. After quoting the above judgment in Ganga Devi this Court gave six months time to the landlady to handover the premises to the landlord in the interest of justice.

13. In our opinion, Ganga Devi applies on all fours to the present case. The first appellant carries on his business from three small stalls of a shop of the Cantonment Council whose rent keeps on increasing. There is nothing on record to suggest that the appellants’ present business is more flourishing than the business which they propose to start in the leased premises. All the three sons of the appellants are educated but unemployed. They want to start business in the premises in occupation of the respondent. One of them is married and has three children. The other three are of a marriageable age. In all there are thirteen members in the appellants’ family and they are living in three rooms and one verandah with great difficulty. As against that the respondent’s family consists of four persons and there are four rooms in his possession. It is observed by the courts below that the appellants own other premises. However, details of those premises are not on record. The High Court has rightly noted that this bald assertion is based on conjectures. It is well settled the landlord’s requirement need not be a dire necessity. The court cannot direct the landlord to do a particular business or imagine that he could profitably do a particular business rather than the business he proposes to start. It was wrong on the part of the District Court to hold that the appellants’ case that their sons want to start the general merchant business is a pretence because they are dealing in eggs and it is not uncommon for a Muslim family to do the business of non- vegetarian food. It is for the landlord to decide which business he wants to do. The Court cannot advise him. Similarly, length of tenancy of the respondent in the circumstances of the case ought not to have weighed with the courts below.

14. We also find that the courts below were swayed by the fact that the financial position of the appellants was better than the respondent. The District Court has erroneously gone on to observe that the appellants can buy another building and start business. It has also observed that the appellants had purchased the building to make profit. In this connection we may usefully refer to the judgment of this Court in Bhimanagouda Basanagouda Patil where the District Judge decided the issue of comparative hardship in favour of the tenant solely on the basis of affluence of the parties. This Court observed that if this is the correct approach then an affluent landlord can never get possession of his premises even if he proves all his bona fide requirements. This Court further observed that the fact that a person has the capacity to purchase the property cannot be the sole ground against him while deciding the question of comparative hardship. If the purchase is pursuant to a genuine need of the landlord the said purchase has to be given due weightage unless, of course, the purchase is actuated by collateral consideration. This Court rejected the High Court’s finding that the landlord had secured the premises apparently in a game of speculation. Somewhat similar observations are made in this case by the District Court which in our opinion are totally unsubstantiated.

15. It is also important to note that there is nothing on record to show that during the pendency of this litigation the respondent made any genuine efforts to find out any alternative accommodation. We specifically asked learned counsel for the respondent to point out any evidence to establish that the respondent made any such genuine efforts. He was unable to answer this query satisfactorily.

16. In the ultimate analysis, we are of the view that the perverse findings of the courts below on the aspect of comparative hardship must be set aside. The High Court has rightly found the need of the appellants to be bona fide. It has however, fallen into an error in directing the respondent to handover only one room to the appellants. In our opinion, the hardship appellants would suffer by not occupying their own premises would be far grater than the hardship the respondent would suffer by having to move out to another place. We are mindful of the fact that whenever the tenant is asked to move out of the premises some hardship is inherent. We have noted that the respondent is in occupation of the premises for a long time. But in our opinion, in the facts of this case that circumstance cannot be the sole determinative factor. That hardship can be mitigated by granting him longer period to move out of the premises in his occupation so that in the meantime he can make alternative arrangement.

17. In the view that we have taken, the appeal succeeds. The impugned order is set aside to the extent it permits the respondent to retain possession of three rooms out of four rooms in his occupation. The respondent is directed to handover possession of all the rooms in his occupation to the appellants. He is granted six months time to vacate the premises in question on the condition that he files usual undertaking before the Registry of this Court within eight weeks from today.

18. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. ……………………………………………..J. (AFTAB ALAM)

……………………………………………..J. (RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI)

NEW DELHI,

JANUARY 05, 2012

Link

Rent control: short-term bad, long-term worse


Rent control: short-term bad, long-term worse

(The above link guides you to the full article)

The astonishing thing about rent control is that economic empirical analysis — in other words, real experience — demonstrates that there is no policy case for it.

Landlord, Religious, Charitable, Educational or Public Institutions S. 11 (7)


      Where the landlord of a building is a religious, charitable, educational or other  public institution, it may, if the building is needed for the purpose of the institution, apply to the Rent Control Court, for an order directing the tenant to put the institution in possession of the building.

Object :

The religious, charitable, educational or other public institutions are given a separate ground for eviction of building belonging to the institution.  This ground is given because section 11 (3) may not be squarely applicable in the case of such institution.  The “other public institutions” should be interpreted on the principle of ‘ejusdem generis’ rule of interpretation.  If the building is needed for the purpose of the institution then the institution may apply to the Rent Control Court for an order of eviction of the tenant and to put the institution in possession of the building.

Renovation (S.11 (5) and 11 (6))


5)        A landlord who wants to renovate the building may apply to the Rent Control Court for an order directing the tenant to permit the landlord to enter and carry out the renovation within a time to be fixed by the Court and the Court may issue such orders, as it deems fit, and the tenant shall be bound to abide by the orders of the Court.

6)        A tenant whose building has been renovated under sub-section (5) shall be liable to pay enhanced rent so as to assure the landlord a rent equal to the rent for a similar building with similar amenities in the locality.

These two subsections are so closely inter-twined that it cannot be separated.  The landlord, who wants to renovate the building, may file an application before the Rent Control Court for an order directing the tenant to permit the landlord to enter and carry out the renovation. The Rent Control Court can fix a time limit for such renewal. This clause specifically says that the tenant shall be bound to abide by such order.  Sub section 11 (6) provides that the tenant whose building has been renovated under sub section 11 (5) shall be liable to pay enhanced rent so as to assure the landlord a rent equal to the rent for a similar building with similar amenities in the locality.

Landlord has to enter the premise so as to carry out the renovation.  The possession is still with the tenant and there is no question of parting with the possession by the tenant.  While the tenant is in possession the landlord can enter and carry out renovation work with his permission or as permitted by the court.[1]  The words repairs, renovation and reconstruction have got well defined meaning so far as the Rent Control Act is concerned.[2]


[1] Bobby Cyriac v. Mohamood, 2004 (2) KLT 930

[2] Bobby Cyriac v. Mohamood, 2004 (2) KLT 930

THE KERALA BUILDINGS (LEASE, STANDARD RENT AND OTHER FACILITIES) ACT, 2013


An Act to regulate the leasing of buildings, to control the rent and protect the rights of the landlords and the tenants of such buildings in the State of Kerala.
Preamble.– WHEREAS, it is expedient to regulate the leasing of buildings, to control the rent and to protect the rights of the landlords and the tenants of such buildings in the State of Kerala, to provide for the adjudication of disputes and matters connected therewith or incidental thereto;
BE it enacted in the Sixty-second year of the Republic of India, as follows:-
1. Short title, extent and commencement.– This Act may be called the Kerala Buildings (Lease, Standard Rent and Other Facilities) Act, 2013.
(2) It extends to the whole of the State of Kerala.
(3) It shall come into force at once.
2. Definitions.-(1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,-
(a) “Appellate Authority” means the Appellate Authority constituted under section 40;
(b) “building” means any building, flat or hut or part of a building or hut, let or to  be let separately for residential or nonresidential purpose and includes,-
(i) the gardens, grounds, wells, tanks and structures, if any, appurtenant to such building, hut, or part of such building or hut, or land, let or to be let along with such buildings, flat or hut;
(ii) any furniture supplied by the landlord for use in such building, flat or hut and part of a building, flat or hut;
(iii) any fittings or machinery belonging to the landlord, affixed to or installed in such building, flat or part of such building or flat and intended to be used by the tenant for or in connection with the purpose for which such building, flat or part of such building or flat is let or to be let, but does not include a room
in a hotel or boarding house;
(c) “Inspector” means an officer appointed under section 35 to perform the functions of the Inspector under this Act;
(d) “land” means a vacant land or land with building which is let or to be let for any use including the parking of vehicles or for the staking or storage facilities;
(e) “landlord” or “building owner” means a person who, is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any building, whether on his own account or on account of or on behalf of or for the benefit of any other person or as a trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person or who would so receive the rent or be entitled to receive the rent, where the building is let to a tenant;
(f) “Local Self Government Institutions” means a town panchayat or a municipal council or a municipal corporation constituted under section 4 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 (20 of 1994) or a Village Panchayat constituted under section 4 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (13 of 1994);
(g) “prescribed” means prescribed by rules made under this Act;
(h) “rent” means the amount paid as rent as agreed to by the landlord or building owner and the tenant under an agreement;

(i) “Rent Control Court” means the court constituted under section 34;
(j) “standard rent” in relation to any building means the rent fixed by the Rent Control Court under the provisions of this Act;
(k) “security deposit” means any payment, fee, deposit or charge to be used for any purpose including the recovery of rent defaults, repairing charges for the damage caused by the tenant or for any other item specified in the Tenancy Agreement.
(l) “tenant” means any person by whom or on whose account or on whose behalf the rent of any building is or but for a special agreement, would be payable and includes,-
(i) the heir or heirs of a deceased tenant; and
(ii) any person continuing in possession after the termination of the tenancy.
(m) “Tenancy Agreement” means an agreement in writing between a landlord and a tenant for the use and the occupancy of a building for residential or non-residential purpose on agreed terms and conditions.
(n) “Tenancy Period” means the period for which the building has been let to the tenant by the landlord;
(o) “Tenantable repairs” means such repairs which shall keep the building in the same condition in which it was let out except for the normal wear and tear;
(p) “Valuer” means an officer appointed under section 36 of the Act;
3. Landlord and tenant to furnish particulars.– (1) Every landlord and every tenant of a building shall furnish, a statement in writing signed by both, to the Secretary of a Local Self Government Institution wherein the building is situate containing the details of tenancy agreement in respect of the building within fifteen days from the date of commencement of the tenancy agreement along with a filing fee of fifty rupees.
(2) Where one of the parties alone signs, he shall, before filing the statement under sub-section (1), forward a copy of the same to the other party by registered post with acknowledgement due.
(3) On receipt of the statement, the Secretary of the Local Self Government Institution shall enter or cause to enter the details of the tenancy in a register maintained for that purpose noting the names of the landlord, tenant, the terms and conditions of the tenancy and the date on which it was filed, with proper attestation.
(4) The Secretary of the Local Self Government Institution, on application made in this behalf and on payment of such fee as may, from time to time, be fixed by the Local Self Government Institution, issue to the applicant a certified copy of the extract from the property tax or house tax assessment register of the Local
Self Government Institution, showing the rental value of the building in respect of which application has been made for the period specified in the application.
(5) The certified copy issued under sub-section(4) shall be received as evidence of the facts stated therein in any proceedings under this Act.
4. Inheritance of tenancy.– (1) From the date of death of a tenant, the right of tenancy shall devolve upon his successors in the following order, namely:-
(a) Spouse;
(b) Children;
(c) Parents;
(d) Daughter-in-law, being the widow of his predeceased son:
Provided that the successor has ordinarily been living in the building with the deceased tenant as a member of his family upto the date of his death and was wholly dependent on the deceased tenant and the successor does not own or occupy a building in the same locality.
(2) If a person, being a successor, mentioned in subsection

(1) was ordinarily living in the building with the deceased tenant but was not dependent on him on the date of his death or he or his spouse or any of his dependent children is owning or occupying a residential building in the locality, such successor shall acquire a right to continue in possession as a tenant for a limited period of one year from the date of death of the tenant and on the
expiry of that period or on his death, whichever is earlier, the right of such successor to continue in possession of the building shall become extinguished:
Provided that the right of any successor to continue in possession of the building becomes extinguished, such extinguishment shall not affect the right of any other successor of the same category to continue in possession of the building and if there is no other successor of the same category, the right to continue in possession of the building shall not, on such extinguishment, pass on to any other successor.
(3) The right of every successor referred to in sub-section(1) to continue in possession of the building as a tenant shall be strictly personal to him and shall not, on the death of such successor, devolve upon any of his heirs.
(4) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall apply to a non-residential building and the vacant possession of such building shall be delivered to the landlord within one year,-
(i) of the death of the tenant;
(ii) of the dissolution of the firm, in case the tenant is a firm;
(iii) of the winding up of the company, in case the tenant is a company;
(iv) of the dissolution of the corporate body other than a company, in case the tenant is such a corporate body.
5. Rent Payable.– The rent payable in relation to a building shall be,-
(a) the rent agreed upon by the landlord and the tenant; or
(b) the standard rent fixed by the Rent Control Court under section 8:
Provided that if the tenancy extends beyond a period of three years, the rent payable shall be increased by twenty per cent in every three years.
6. Other Charges Payable.– (1) A tenant shall in addition to the rent payable pay the following charges to the landlord, namely:-
(a) charges for the amenities as agreed upon by the landlord and the tenant, subject to a maximum of fifteen per cent of the rent;
(b) maintenance charges at the rate of ten per cent of the rent payable.
(2) The landlord shall be, unless otherwise agreed, entitled to recover from the tenant the amount paid by him towards charges for electricity or water consumed or the charges, if any, payable by the tenant or any charges paid to the Local Self Government Institutions or other authority.
7. Revision of rent in certain cases.- (1) Where a landlord has at any time, before the commencement of this Act, with or without the approval of the tenant or after the commencement of this Act, with the writt`en approval of the tenant, incurred expenditure for any improvement, addition or structural alteration in the building, not being expenditure on decoration or tenantable repairs necessary or usual for such building and the cost of that improvement, addition or alteration has not been taken into account in determining the rent of the building, the landlord may increase the rent per year by an amount not exceeding thirty per cent of such cost.
(2) Where a landlord intends to increase the rent of any building under sub-section (1), he shall give the tenant a notice of his intention to do so and such increase shall become due only in respect of the period of the tenancy after the expiry of thirty days from the date on which the notice is given.
(3) Every notice under sub-section (2) shall be in writing signed by or on behalf of the landlord and given in the manner provided under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (Central Act 4 of 1882).
(4) Where, after the rent of a building has been fixed under the provisions of this Act or agreed upon, there has been a decrease or diminution in the accommodation or amenities provided in such building, the tenant may claim a reduction in the rent.
8. Rent Control Court to fix standard rent etc.– (1) The Rent Control Court shall, on an application made to it in this behalf, in the prescribed manner, in respect of any building,-
(i) fix the standard rent for such building after holding such enquiry as it thinks fit taking into consideration all evidentiary materials produced by both the parties and also the report of the valuer.
(ii) revise the rent as per the provisions of sections 5 and 7.
(2) the report of the valuer under sub-section(1) shall contain the details of all the facts taken note of by the valuer while inspecting the building and his reasons for his conclusion regarding the reasonable amount of rent the building may fetch on the date of his visit and the report shall only be considered as piece of evidence and not a conclusive one.
(3) In fixing the standard rent of any building part of which has been lawfully sub-let, the Rent Control Court may also fix the standard rent of such part so sub-let.
(4) The standard rent shall in all cases be fixed for a period of twelve months:
Provided that where any building is let or re-let for a period of less than twelve months, the standard rent for such tenancy shall bear the same proportion to the annual rent as the period of tenancy bears to twelve months.
(5) In fixing the standard rent of any building under this section, the Rent Control Court shall fix the standard rent thereof in its unfurnished condition and shall also determine an additional charge to be payable on account of any fittings or furniture supplied by the landlord.
(6) The Rent Control Court may, while fixing the standard rent or the increase or decrease in rent or other charges payable, order for payment of the arrears of amount due by the tenant to the landlord or landlord to the tenant in such number of instalments within a time to be fixed by the Rent Control Court.
9. Fixation of interim rent.- If an application for fixing the standard rent or for determining the increase or decrease of such rent is made under section 8, the Rent Control Court shall, as expeditiously as possible, make an order specifying the amount of the rent or the lawful increase or decrease pending final decision on the application and shall appoint the date from which the rent or lawful increase or decrease so specified shall have effect.
10. Landlord to claim or receive agreed rent, other charges, if any, and security deposit or rent fixed by the Rent Control Court.– The landlord shall not claim, receive or stipulate for the payment other than,-
(i) the rent, other charges and security deposit as agreed to between the landlord and the tenant; (ii) the rent and other charges, if any, fixed by the Rent Control Court:
Provided that the landlord may receive or stipulate for the payment of an amount not exceeding six months’ rent by way of security deposit.
11. Payment of Rent.- Every tenant shall pay rent and other charges, if any, payable within the time fixed in the agreement or in the absence of such stipulation, by the fifteenth day of the succeeding month of the month for which it is payable and where any default occurs in the payment of  rent and other charges, if any, the tenant shall be liable to pay simple interest at the rate of twelve per cent per annum from the date on which such payment of rent and other charges payable became due to the date on which it is paid.
12. Receipt to be given for the rent paid. (1) Every tenant who makes payment of rent or other charges payable or security deposit to his landlord shall be entitled to obtain forthwith a written receipt for the amount paid duly signed by the landlord or his authorised agent.
(2) Where the landlord or his authorised agent refuses or neglects to deliver to the tenant the receipt under sub-section (1), the Rent Control Court shall, on an application filed in this behalf by the tenant, within two months from the date of payment and after hearing the landlord or his authorised agent, pass an order directing the landlord or his authorised agent to pay to the tenant, by way of damages, such sum not exceeding double the amount of rent or other charges paid by the tenant and the costs of the application and shall also grant a  certificate to the tenant in respect of the rent or other charges paid.
(3) Where the landlord or his authorised agent refuses to accept or evades the receipt of rent and other charges payable to him the tenant shall, by notice in writing, require the landlord to supply him the particulars of his bank account in the locality in which the tenant shall deposit the rent and other charges payable to the landlord.
(4) Where the landlord does not supply the particulars of bank account, the tenant shall remit the rent and the other charges payable to the landlord, from time to time, through money order or any other lawful mode of payment after deducting the service charges.
13. Deposit of rent by the tenant.- (1) Where the landlord does not accept the rent and other charges, if any, payable by the tenant as provided in section 11 or section 12 or refuses or neglects to deliver a receipt under section 12 or where there is a bonafide doubt as to the person to whom the rent is payable, the tenant shall deposit such rent and other changes, if any, payable with the Rent
Control Court through an application in the prescribed manner.
(2) On deposit of the rent and other charges, if any, payable, the Rent Control Court shall send, in the prescribed manner, a copy of the application to the landlord or the persons claiming to be entitled to the rent and other charges, payable with an endorsement of the date of the deposit.
(3) Where an application is made for the withdrawal of any deposit of rent and other charges, if any, payable, the Rent Control Court shall, on being satisfied that the applicant is the person entitled to receive the rent and other charges deposited, order the amount of the rent and other charges to be paid to the applicant, in the prescribed manner:
Provided that no order for payment of any deposit of rent and other charges payable shall be made by the Rent Control Court under this sub-section without giving all the persons named by the tenant in his application under sub-section (1) as claiming to be entitled to payment of such rent and other charges payable, an opportunity of being heard and such order shall be without prejudice to the rights of such persons to receive such rent and other charges payable as decided by a court of competent jurisdiction.
(4) Where any statement contained in an application filed by the tenant under sub-section (1) is contrary to the facts or incorrect, the landlord may file a petition before the Rent Control Court within thirty days from the date of receipt of the notice of deposit.
(5) On receipt of the petition under sub-section (4), the Rent Control Court, after giving the tenant an opportunity of being heard and on being satisfied that the statements in the petition are materially incorrect may impose on the tenant an amount which may extend to two months’ rent as fine and may order that a sum out of the fine imposed be paid to the landlord as compensation in addition to the arrears of rent and other charges deposited.
(6) The Rent Control Court may, on a petition filed by the tenant, after giving an opportunity of being heard and on being satisfied that the landlord, without any reasonable cause, refused to accept the rent and other charges payable, though tendered to him, within the time referred to in section 11, impose on the landlord an amount which may extend to two months’ rent as fine and may further order that a sum out of the fine imposed be paid to the tenant as compensation.
14. Time limit for deposit of rent and consequences of incorrect particulars in the application for deposit.– (1) No rent deposited under section 13 shall be considered to have been validly deposited under the said section, unless the deposit is made within twenty-one days from the date specified under section 11 for the payment of the rent.
(2) No such deposit shall be considered to have been validly made, if the tenant willfully makes any false statement in his application for depositing the rent, unless the landlord has withdrawn the amount deposited before the date of filing the application for the recovery of possession of the building from the tenant.
(3) Where the rent is deposited within the time limit specified under sub-section (1) and does not cease to be valid deposit for the reason mentioned in sub-section (2), the deposit shall constitute payment of rent to the landlord, as if the amount deposited had been validly tendered.
15. Saving as to the acceptance of rent and other charges payable and forfeiture of deposit.(1) The withdrawal of rent and other charges, if any, payable, deposited under section 13, shall not operate as an admission of the correctness of the rate of rent and other charges payable during the period of default, the amount due, or of any other facts stated in the tenant’s application for depositing the rent and other charges payable under the said section.
(2) Where any rent and other charges payable and deposited are not withdrawn, before the expiration of five years from the date of sending the notice of deposit, by the landlord or by the person entitled to receive such rent and other charges payable shall be forfeited to Government by an order made by the Rent Control Court.
(3) Before passing an order of forfeiture, the Rent Control Court shall give notice to the landlord or to the person entitled to receive the rent and other charges in deposit by registered post at the last known address of such landlord or person and shall also publish the notice in the office of the Rent Control Court and in any local newspaper.
16. Period of Tenancy.– (1) The period of tenancy in respect of a building shall be the period agreed to between the landlord and the tenant unless terminated otherwise.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or any other law for the time being in force, or in any judgment, decree or order of any Court , where the period of tenancy in respect of any existing tenancy of a building is over before the commencement of this Act and no proceedings for eviction are pending before any Court and the tenant is continuing in possession of the building, then the period of tenancy in such case shall continue upto six months from the date of commencement of this Act:
Provided that at any time before the said period, the landlord and the tenant may by a written agreement extend the period of tenancy.
(3) It shall be the duty of the tenant to hand over the physical vacant possession of the building to the landlord or his authorised agent immediately after the period of tenancy is over or terminated otherwise.
17. Duties of landlord.– (1) Subject to any agreement in writing to the contrary, every landlord shall be bound to keep the building in good and tenantable repairs.
(2) Where any repairs, without which the building are not habitable or usable and if the landlord neglects or fails to make them within a period of three months after issuing notice in writing, the tenant shall apply to the Rent Control Court for permission to make such repairs himself and shall submit to the Rent Control Court an estimate of the cost of such repairs and thereupon, the Rent Control Court shall after giving the landlord an opportunity of being heard and after considering such estimate of the cost and making such inquiries as it may consider necessary, by an order in writing, permit the tenant to make such repairs at such cost as may be specified in the order and it shall thereafter be lawful for the tenant to make such repairs himself and to deduct the cost thereof, which shall in no case exceed the amount so specified, from the rent or otherwise recover it from the landlord :
Provided that the amount so deducted or recoverable from rent in an year shall not exceed one-half of the rent payable by the tenant for that year and any amount remaining not recovered in that year shall be deducted or recovered from rent in the subsequent years at the rate of not more than twenty-five percent of the rent for a month:
Provided further that where there are more than one tenant in a building owned by a landlord, the tenants thereof shall jointly carry out the repairs and share the expenses proportionately.
(3) Nothing in sub-section (2) shall apply to a building which,-
(a) at the time of letting out was not habitable or usable except with undue inconvenience and the tenant had agreed to take the same in that condition,
(b) after being let out was caused by the tenant to be not habitable or useable except with undue inconvenience.
(4) It shall be the duty of every landlord of a building to send a communication by registered post with acknowledgement due to the nearest police station within whose jurisdiction the said building is situate incorporating the particulars of the building, name of the landlord, age, father’s name, date of commencement of the period of tenancy, address and details of employment of the tenant along with a photostat copy of the identity proof of the tenant.
(5) The communication under sub-section (4) shall be forwarded within one month from the date of commencement of the period of tenancy
Explanation:- For the purpose of this section, the identity proof means any document such as Ration Card, Income Tax PAN Card, Driving Licence, Employment Identity Card in the case of Government Employees or any other identity issued by the Central or the State Government.
(6) A register containing the details of the buildings occupied by the tenants together with other particulars mentioned in subsection (4) shall be maintained in each police station within the jurisdiction of which such building is situate.
(7) Any landlord who fails to furnish the information required under sub-section (4) shall on conviction be punished with a fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees for the first offence and for the subsequent offence a simple imprisonment for a period not exceeding three months or with fine which shall not be less than ten thousand rupees.
18. Duties of tenant.- (1) Every tenant shall be bound to keep the building in good and tenantable repairs.
(2) The tenant shall allow the landlord or a person authorised by him to enter and inspect the building, in the prescribed manner.
(3) The tenant shall make good all damage caused to the building by his negligence within three months of being informed in writing to do so by the landlord failing which the landlord shall apply to the Rent Control Court for permission to make good the said damage and the Rent Control Court may decide the matter after giving the tenant an opportunity of being heard and after considering the estimate of the cost and making such inquiries as it may consider necessary, by an order in writing, permit the landlord to make such repairs at such cost as shall be specified in the order, and it shall thereafter be lawful for the landlord to make such repairs and to recover the cost of such repairs from the tenant, which shall in no case exceed the amount so specified.
(4) The tenant shall hand over the possession of the building on termination of tenancy in the same condition, except for the normal wear and tear, when it was handed over to him at the beginning of such tenancy and in case where damage have been caused, not being the damage caused by force majeure, the tenant shall make good the damage caused to the building failing which the landlord may apply to the Rent Control Court and the Rent Control Court may decide the matter in the manner provided in subsection (3).
(5) The tenant shall not, during the subsistence of tenancy or thereafter, demolish any improvement or alteration other than any fixture of a removable nature, without the permission of the landlord failing which such demolition or alteration shall be deemed to be a damage caused by such tenant under sub-section (3) and shall be dealt with in the manner provided in the said sub-section.
(6) The tenant shall vacate and hand over the building to the landlord, if the tenant is already in possession of a building or subsequently acquires possession of or puts up a building, reasonably sufficient for his requirement in the same city, town or panchayat.
19. Cutting off or withholding essential supply or services.– (1) No landlord, either by himself or through any person purporting to act on his behalf, shall without just and sufficient cause cut off or withhold any essential supply or services enjoyed by the tenant in respect of the building let out to him.
(2) Where a landlord contravenes the provisions of subsection (1), the tenant may make an application, in the prescribed form, to the Rent Control Court complaining of such contravention.
(3) Where the Rent Control Court is satisfied that the essential supply or services was cut off or withheld by the landlord with a view to compel the tenant to vacate the building or to pay an enhanced rent, the Rent Control Court shall pass an interim order, without giving notice to the landlord, directing him to restore the amenities immediately, pending enquiry referred to in sub-section (4).
(4) Where the Rent Control Court on enquiry, finds that the essential supply or services enjoyed by the tenant in respect of the building was cut off or withheld by the landlord, without just and sufficient cause, he shall make an order directing the landlord to restore such supply or service.
(5) The Rent Control Court may, in its discretion, order a compensation not exceeding one thousand rupees,-
(a) to be paid to the landlord by the tenant, if the application under sub-section (2) was made frivolously or vexatiously;
(b) to be paid to the tenant by the landlord, if the landlord has cut off or withheld the supply or services without just and sufficient cause.
Explanation I.- For the purposes of this section, “essential supply or services” includes supply of water, electricity, lights in passage, lift and on staircases, conservancy and sanitary services.
Explanation II.- For the purpose of this section, withholding any essential supply or services shall include acts or omissions, on the part of the landlord on account of which the essential supply or services are cut off by the Local Self
Government Institution or any other competent authority.
20. Protection against arbitrary eviction of tenants.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force or agreement, a tenant shall not be evicted, except in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
(2) The Rent Control Court on an application made to it by the landlord, in the prescribed manner, make an order for the recovery of possession of the building on one or more of the following grounds, namely:-
(a) that the tenant has neither paid nor tendered the whole of the arrears of rent and other charges recoverable under the provisions of this Act from him within two months from the date on which a notice of demand for payment of such amount has been served on him by the landlord in the manner provided in section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (Central Act 4 of 1882);
(b) that the tenant has without the consent in writing of the landlord has sublet, assigned or otherwise parted with the possession of the whole or any part of the building;
(c) that the tenant has used the building for a purpose other than that for which it was let without obtaining the consent in writing of the landlord;
(d) that the building was let for use as a residential or commercial one and the tenant has not been occupying therein, without reasonable cause, for a period of six months immediately before the date of the filing of the application for the recovery of possession thereof;
(e) that the building or any part thereof has become unsafe or unfit for human habitation;
(f) that the landlord requires the building for carrying out the repairs or reconstruction which cannot be carried out without the building being vacated;
(g) that the building or any part thereof are required by the landlord for the purpose of immediate demolition ordered by the Government or a Local Self Government Institution or any other competent authority or the building is required by the landlord to carry out any work in pursuance of any improvement scheme or development scheme and that such work cannot be carried out without the building being vacated;
(h) that the building is required by the landlord for the purpose of repairs or reconstruction or make thereto any substantial addition or alteration including construction on the terrace or on the appurtenant land and that such repairs or reconstruction or addition or alteration cannot be carried out without the building being vacated:
Provided that no order for the recovery of possession under clause (f), (g) or (h) shall be made unless the Rent Control Court is satisfied that the plan and the estimate of such repairs or re-construction, as the case may be, have been properly prepared and that the landlord has necessary means to carry out the said repairs or re-construction;
(i) that the building consists of not more than two floors and the same are required by the landlord for the purpose of immediate demolition with a view to re-build the same:
Provided that where the possession of the building has been recovered under clause (e), (f) or (g), a tenant so dispossessed shall have a right of first option to get the reconstructed building or such portion of the reconstructed building equivalent in area to the original building in which he was a tenant on new terms agreed upon by the parties or fixed by the Court after reconstruction in appropriate proceedings;
(j) that the tenant, his spouse or children ordinarily living with him have, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, built or acquired vacant possession of, or been allotted any building which is suitable for his use:
Provided that the Rent Control Court may in appropriate cases allow such period to the tenant to vacate the building as it may permit but not exceeding one year from the date of passing the order of eviction;
(k) that the building was let to the tenant for use as a residence by reason of his being in the service or employment of the landlord, and that the tenant has ceased, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, to be in such service or employment:
Provided that no order for the recovery of possession of any building shall be made on this ground where the Rent Control Court is of the opinion that there is a bonafide dispute as to whether the tenant has ceased to be in the service or employment of the landlord;
(l) that the tenant has, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, caused or permitted to be caused substantial damage to the building or such alteration to the building as has the effect of changing its identity or diminishing its value substantially;
(m) that the tenant or any person residing with the tenant has been convicted for causing nuisance or annoyance to a person living in the neighborhood of the building or has been convicted for using or for allowing the use of the building for an immoral or illegal purpose;
(n) that the tenant has, inspite of the previous notice, used or dealt with the building in a manner contrary to any condition imposed on the landlord by the Government or the Local Self Government Institution while giving him a lease of the land on which the building is situate:
Provided that no order for the recovery of possession of any building shall be made on this ground if the tenant, within such time as may be specified in this behalf by the Rent Control Court, complies with the condition imposed on the landlord by any of the authorities referred to in this clause;
(o) that the tenant, in his reply having denied the ownership of the landlord, has failed to prove it or that such denial was not made in a bonafide manner;
(p) that the person in occupation of the building has failed to prove that he is a bonafide tenant;
(q) that the building let for residential or non-residential purpose shall be required, whether in the same form or after reconstruction or re-building, by the landlord for occupation for residential or non-residential purpose for himself or for any member of his family if he is the owner thereof or for any person for whose benefit the building is held and that the landlord or such person has
no other reasonably suitable accommodation:
Provided that where the landlord has acquired the building by transfer, no application for the recovery of possession of such building shall lie under this clause unless a period of one year has elapsed from the date of the acquisition;
Explanation I.- Building let for a particular use may be required by the landlord for a different use if such use is permissible under law.
Explanation II.- For the purpose of this clause or section 21, 22, 23 or, 24 an occupation by the landlord of any part of a building of which any building let out by him forms a part shall not disentitle him to recover the possession of such building;
(r) that the tenant fails to deliver the possession after notice by the landlord to vacate after the expiry of the period of tenancy specified in the agreement.
(3) In any proceedings for eviction under clauses (f), (g), (h) of sub-section (2) of this section or section 22 or section 23 or section 24, the Rent Control Court may allow eviction from a part of the building if the landlord agrees to the same:
Provided that in case of part eviction, the rent and other charges payable, if any, by the tenant shall be decreased in proportion to the part evicted.
21. Restriction against eviction not applicable to certain tenants.– Nothing contained in section 20 shall apply to a tenant of a residential building for which the monthly rent is more than ten thousand rupees, of a commercial building for which the monthly rent is more than twenty thousand rupees and the eviction in such cases shall be governed by the conditions contained in the tenancy agreement and the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882(Central Act 4 of 1882).
22. Right to recover immediate possession of the building to certain persons.-(1) Where a person in occupation of any residential building allotted to him by the Government or any authority is required by, or in pursuance of, any general or special order made by the Government or authority to vacate such residential building, there shall accrue, from the date of such order,
to such person, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force or in any tenancy agreement, whether express or implied, custom or usage to the contrary, a right to recover immediate possession of any building let by him, his spouse or his children, as the case may be.
(2) Where a landlord exercises the right to recover possession under sub-section (1) of this section or section 20, 23 or 24 and had received,-
(a) any rent in advance from the tenant, he shall refund to the tenant such amount as represents the rent payable for the unexpired portion of the tenancy period or lease by depositing the same before the Rent Control Court on the date on which the delivery is to be effected or two weeks prior to the date fixed for the delivery of possession;
(b) any other charges payable he shall, in a like manner refund to the tenant a sum which shall bear the same proportion to the total amount so received, as the unexpired portion of the tenancy period or lease:
Provided that any default is made in making any refund, the landlord shall be liable to pay simple interest at the rate of twelve per cent per annum on the amount which he has failed to refund:
Provided further that the landlord may be permitted to set off any amount which he is lawfully entitled to recover from the tenant against the refund due to the tenant.
23. Right to recover immediate possession of the building to the members of the Armed Force.– (1) Where a person,-
(a) is a person released or released from any Armed Forces and the building let out by him, his spouse or his children, as the case may be, is required for his own residence; or

(b) is a dependent of a member of any Armed Forces who has been killed in action and the building let by such member isrequired for the residence of the family of such member. Suchmember, his spouse or his children, as the case may be, may, within one year from the date of his release or retirement from such Armed Forces or one year from the date of death of such member or within a period of one year from the date of commencement of this Act, whichever is later, apply to the Rent Control Court for the recovery of immediate possession of such building.
(2) Where a person is a member of any of the Armed Forces and has a period of less than one year preceding the date of his retirement and the building let by him, his spouse or his children, as the case may be, is required for his own residence after his retirement, he, his spouse or his children, as the case may be, at any time, within a period of one year before the date of his retirement, apply to the Rent Control Court for recovery of immediate possession of such building.
(3) Where the person, his spouse or his children referred to in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) has let more than one building it shall be open to him, his spouse or his children, as the case may be, to make an application under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) in respect of any one of the buildings of his choice.
Explanation:- For the purposes of this section “Armed Forces” means an Armed Force of the Union constituted under an Act of Parliament.
24. Right to recover immediate possession of building by the Central Government and State Government employees.– (1) Where a person is a retired employee of the Central Government or of a State Government and the building let by him, his spouse or his children is required for his own residence such person, his spouse or his children, as the case may be, may within one year from the date of his retirement or within a period of one year from the date of commencement of this Act, whichever is later, apply to the Rent Control Court for the recovery of immediate possession of such building.
(2) Where a person is an employee of the Central Government or of a State Government and has a period of less than one year preceding to the date of his retirement and the building let by him or his spouse or his children is required by him for his own residence after his retirement, he, his spouse or his children, as the case may be, may, at any time within a period of one year before the date of retirement shall apply to the Rent Control Court for the recovery of immediate possession of such building.
(3) Where a person, his spouse or his children referred to in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) has let more than one building, it shall be open to him to make an application under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) in respect of anyone of the buildings of his choice.
Explanation:- For the purposes of sections 22, 23 and 24, “immediate possession” means possession recoverable on the expiry of sixty days from the date of the order of eviction.
25. Right to recover immediate possession of the building by widows, persons with disability and senior citizens.– (1) Where the
landlord is,-
(a) a widow and the building was let by her or by her deceased husband; or
(b) a person with disability and the building was let by him; or
(c) a person who is of the age of sixty years or more and the building was let by him, required by her or him or for her or his family or for any one ordinarily living with her or him for residential or non-residential purpose, such person may apply to the Rent Control Court for the recovery of immediate possession of such building.
(2) Where the landlord referred to in sub-section (1) has let more than one building, it shall be open to him to make an application under sub-section (1) in respect of any one of the residential buildings or any one of the non-residential buildings, as the case may be, of his choice.
Explanation I.- For the purpose of this section, “person with disability” means a person referred to in clause (l) of section 2 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (Central Act 1 of 1996) or clause (f) of section 2 of the National Trust for Welfare of Persons with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation and Multiple Disabilities Act, 1999 (Central Act 44 of 1999).
Explanation II.- The right to recover possession under this section shall be exercisable only once in respect of residential and non-residential building.
26. Payment of rent during eviction proceedings.– (1) In a proceeding for the recovery of possession of any building on any ground, the landlord may, at any stage of the proceedings, make an application to the Rent Control Court for passing an order against the tenant to pay the landlord the amount of rent legally recoverable and the Rent Control Court may, after giving the parties an
opportunity of being heard, make an order directing the tenant topay to the landlord or deposit with the Rent Control Court within one month from the date of such order, an amount calculated at the rate of rent last paid for the period for which the arrears of the rent were legally recoverable from the tenant including the period subsequent thereto upto the end of the previous month in which payment or deposit is made and continue to pay or deposit, monthly by the fifteenth day of each succeeding month, a sum equivalent to the rent at that rate.
(2) In any proceedings referred to in sub-section (1) and where there is any dispute as to the amount of rent payable by the tenant, the Rent Control Court may, within fifteen days from the date of the first hearing of the application, fix an interim rent in relation to the building, to be paid or deposited in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1) until the rent in relation thereto is  determined under the provisions of this Act and the amount of arrears, if any, calculated on the basis of the rent so determined shall be paid or deposited by the tenant within one month from the date on which the standard rent is fixed or such further time as the Rent Control Court may allow in this behalf.
(3) In any proceedings referred to in sub-section (1), where there is any dispute as to the person or persons to whom the rent is payable, the Rent Control Court may direct the tenant to deposit with the Rent Control Court the amount payable by him under subsection
(1) or sub-section (2), as the case may be, and in such case, no person shall be entitled to withdraw the amount so deposited until the Rent Control Court decides the dispute and makes an order for the payment of the same.
27. Recovery of possession for occupation and reentry.
(1) Where a landlord recovers possession of any building form the tenant in pursuance of an order made under clause (q) of sub-section (2) of section 20 or under section 23, 24 or 25, the landlord shall not, except with the permission of the Rent Control Court in the prescribed manner, re-let the whole or any part of the building within three years from the date of obtaining such
possession:
Provided that where a landlord recovers possession of any building from the tenant in pursuance of an order made under clause (q) of sub-section (2) of section 20 for occupation after construction or rebuilding, the period of three years shall be reckoned from the date of completion of reconstruction or rebuilding, as the case may be.
(2) Where the landlord recovers possession of any building under section 20,23,24 or 25 and the building is not occupied by the landlord or by the person for whose benefit the building is held, within two months of obtaining such possession, or the building so occupied is, at any time within three years from the date of obtaining possession, re-let to any person other than the evicted
tenant without obtaining the permission of the Rent Control Court, the Rent Control Court may on an application direct the landlord, if the tenant has not already built, acquired vacant possession of or been allotted the building, to put the tenant in possession of the building on the same terms and conditions or on new terms and conditions, if the building have been re-constructed or re-built or to pay him such compensation as the Rent Control Court thinks fit or with both as the facts and circumstances of the case may warrant.
28. Recovery of possession for repairs or re-construction and re-entry.– (1) The Rent Control Court may, while making an order on the grounds specified in clause (e), (f), (g) or (h) of subsection (2) of section 20, fix the new rent and ascertain from the tenant whether he elects to be placed in occupation of the building or part thereof from which he is to be evicted and if the tenant so elects, shall record the fact of the selection in the order and specify
therein the date on which he shall deliver possession to the landlord so as to enable him to commence the work of repairs of the building or reconstruction, as the case may be and the date on which the landlord shall deliver the possession of the said building to the tenant.
(2) Where the tenant delivers possession on or before the date specified in the order, the landlord shall, on the completion of the work of repairs of the building or re-construction, put the tenant in occupation of the building or part thereof before the date specified in sub-section (1) or such extended date as may be specified by the Rent Control Court by an order.
(3) Where the tenant has delivered possession on or before the date specified in the order and the landlord fails to commence the work of repairs of the building or re-construction within three months from the date specified, the Rent Control Court may, on an application by the tenant, order the landlord to put the tenant in occupation of the building on the same terms and conditions or on revised terms and conditions and to pay to the tenant such compensation as the Rent Control Court may thinks fit.
(4) A landlord may, after repairs or re-construction of the building apply to the Rent Control Court for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building if he bonafide needs the building for his own occupation or for the occupation by any member of his family depended on him:
Provided that if the landlord has another building of his own in his possession in the same city, town or village no such order of direction shall be issued except where the Rent Control Court is satisfied that for special reasons, in any particular case it shall be just and proper to do so:
Provided further that the Rent Control Court shall not give any such direction to a tenant to put the landlord in possession, if such tenant is depending for his livelihood mainly on the income derived from any trade or business carried on in such building and there is no other suitable building available in the locality for such person to carry on such trade or business:
Provided also that no landlord whose right to recover possession arises under an instrument of transfer inter vivo shall be entitled to apply to be put in possession until the expiry of one year from the date of the instrument.
Provided also that if a landlord after obtaining an order to be put in possession transfers his rights in respect of the building to another person, the transferee shall not be entitled to be put in possession unless he proves that he bonafide needs the building for his own occupation or for any member of his family depended on him.
29. Recovery of possession in case of tenancies for limited period.- (1) Where a landlord after obtaining the permission of the Rent Control Court, in the prescribed manner, lets the whole of the building or part thereof as a residence for such period, not being more than five years, as may be agreed to in writing between the landlord and the tenant and the tenant does not, on the  expiry of the said period, vacate such building, then, notwithstanding anything contained in section 20 or in any other law, the Rent Control Court may, on an application by the landlord place the landlord in possession of the building or part thereof by evicting the tenant.
(2) The Rent Control Court shall not,-
(i) grant permission under sub-section (1) in respect of a building for more than two times consecutively except for good and sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing.
Explanation.- A permission granted under sub-section (1) shall not be construed to be consecutive, if a period of five years or more has elapsed after the expiry of the last limited period of tenancy.
(ii) entertain any application from the tenant calling in question the bonafides of the landlord in letting the building under this section.
(3) All applications made before the Rent Control Court and appeals made before the Appellate Authority by the tenant shall abate on the expiry of the period for which permission has been granted under sub-section (1).
(4) While passing an order under sub-section (1), the Rent Control Court may order damages to the landlord for the use or occupation of the building at double the last rent paid by the tenant together with interest at the rate of twelve per cent per annum for the period from the date of such order till the date of actual vacation by the tenant.
30. Special provision for recovery of possession in certain cases.- Where the landlord in respect of any building is a company or other body corporate or a co-operative society or a public institution then, notwithstanding anything contained in section 20 or in any other law for the time being in force the Rent Control Court may, on an application by such landlord, place the landlord in possession of such building by evicting the tenant, if the Rent Control Court is satisfied that,-
(a) the tenant to whom such building was let for use as a residence at a time when he was in the service or employment of the landlord, has ceased to be in such service or employment and the building is required for the use of employees of such landlord; or
(b) the tenant has acted in contravention of the terms, express or implied, under which he was authorised to occupy such building; or
(c) any other person is in unauthorized occupation of such building; or
(d) the building is required bonafide by the landlord for the use of employees of such landlord or, in the case of a public institution, for the furtherance of its activities.
Explanation.- For the purposes of this section, “public institution”, includes any educational institution, library, hospital and charitable dispensary but does not include any such institution set up by a private individual or group of individuals whether incorporate or not.
31. Permission to construct additional structures. – Where the landlord proposes to make any improvement in, or construct any additional structure on, any building which has been let to a tenant and the tenant refuses to allow the landlord to make such improvement or construct such additional structure and the Rent Control Court, on an application by the landlord, is satisfied that the
landlord is ready and willing to commence the work and that such work will not cause any undue hardship to the tenant, the Rent Control Court may permit the landlord to do such work and may make such other order as it thinks fit.
32. Special provision regarding vacant building sites.- Notwithstanding anything contained in section 20, where any building which has been let comprises vacant land upon which it is permissible under the Building Rules for the time being in force, to erect any building, whether for use as a residence or for any other purpose and the landlord proposing to erect such building is unable to obtain possession of the land from the tenant during the tenancy
period and the Rent Control Court, on an application by the landlord, is satisfied that the landlord is willing to commence the work and that the severance of the vacant land from the rest of the building will not cause undue hardship to the tenant, the Rent Control Court may,-
(a) direct such severance; or
(b) place the landlord in possession of the vacant land; or
(c) determine the rent payable by the tenant in respect of the rest of the building; or
(d) make such other order as it thinks fit in the circumstances of the case.
33. Vacant possession to landlord.– Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, where the interest of a tenant in any building is determined for any reason whatsoever and any order is made by the Rent Control Court under this Act for the recovery of possession of such building, the order shall, subject to the provisions of section 32, be binding on all persons who may be in occupation of the building and vacant possession thereof shall be given to the landlord by evicting all such persons therefrom:
Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to any person who has an independent title to such building.
34. Constitution of Rent Control Court.- The Government may, by notification in the Gazette, appoint a person who is or is qualified to be appointed as a Munsiff to be the Rent Control Court for such local area as may be specified therein.
35. Appointment of Inspectors.– (1) The Government may by notification in the Gazette appoint such officers as they think fit to be Inspectors for the purpose of this Act and may assign to them such local limits of jurisdiction.
(2) The Inspectors may for the purpose of any investigation or enquiry under this Act enter any building, in the manner as may be prescribed.
36. Appointment of Valuers.- The Government may, by notification in the Gazette, appoint officers as Valuers for any area having such qualification, as may be prescribed.
37. Duties and Powers of Valuer.– (1) The Valuer shall assist the Rent Control Court in fixing the standard rent for any building in respect of which an application for fixation of standard rent is pending before the Rent Control Court.
(2) The Valuer shall, having regard to the situation, location and condition of the building, and the amenities provided therein, and where there are similar or nearly similar buildings in the locality, having regard to the rent payable in respect of such buildings, submit a report to the Rent Control Court indicating in detail the method of calculation of standard rent fixed by him and stating the reasons for his conclusion.
(3) The Valuer shall prepare and submit the report for the purposes of section 8.
38. Execution of Orders.– Every order made by the Rent Control Court and every order passed in an appeal shall after the expiry of the time allowed therein, be executed by the Munsiff’s Court or if there are more than one Munsiff’s Court by the Principal Munsiff’s Court having original jurisdiction over the area in which the building is situate as if it were a decree passed by it.
39. Decisions which have become final not to be reopened.– The Rent Control Court shall summarily reject any application under section 20 of the Act, which arises between the same parties or between parties under whom they or any of them claim substantially the same issue as have been finally decided in a former proceedings under this Act or under the corresponding provisions of any law in force prior to the commencement of this Act or the corresponding provisions of any law repealed by this Act.
40. Constitution of Appellate Authority.– The Government may, by general or special order, notified in the Gazette, confer on such officers and authorities not below the rank of a District Judge, the powers of Appellate Authorities for the purpose of this Act in such areas or in such classes of cases as may be specified in the order.
41. Appeal.– (1) Any person aggrieved by an order passed by the Rent Control Court may, within thirty days from the date of such order, prefer an appeal in writing to the Appellate Authority having jurisdiction in the manner as may be prescribed.
(2) On such appeal being preferred, the Appellate Authority may order the stay of further proceedings in the matter, pending decision on the appeal.
(3) The Appellate Authority may call for the records of the case from the Rent Control Court and after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard and, if necessary, after making such further inquiry as it thinks fit shall decide the appeal.
Explanation.– The Appellate Authority may, while confirming the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court, grant an extension of time to the tenant for putting the landlord in possession of the building.
(4) The Appellate Authority shall also have all the powers of the Rent Control Court including power for fixing the arrears of rent.
(5) The decision of the Appellate Authority, on an order of the Rent Control Court, shall be final and shall not be called in question in any Court of law.
42. Costs.– Subject to such conditions and limitations, if any, as may be prescribed, the costs and incidental expenses to all proceedings before the Rent Control Court or before the Appellate Authority shall be the discretion of the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority, as the case may be, which shall have full power to determine by whom or out of what property and to what
extent such costs are to be paid and to give all necessary directions for the purpose.
Explanation. – The Appellate Authority may set aside or vary any order passed by the Rent Control Court with regard to the costs and the incidental expenses to the proceedings.
43. Power to remand.– While disposing of an appeal under this Act, the Appellate Authority may remand the case for fresh disposal by giving such directions as it may think fit.
44. Order under the Act to be binding on sub-tenant.- (1) Any order for the eviction of a tenant passed under this Act shall be binding on all sub-tenants under him, whether they are parties to the proceedings or not, provided such order was not obtained by fraud or collusion.
(2) Where sub-tenancy is allowed under the original tenancy agreement, the sub-tenants shall be made a party to the proceedings if notice of the sub-tenancy had been given to the landlord.
45. Proceedings by or against legal representatives.– The provisions of section 146 and Order XXII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ( Central Act 5 of 1908) shall, as far as possible, be applicable to the proceedings under this Act.
46. Summons etc.– (1) The Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority shall subject to such conditions and limitations, as may be prescribed, have the powers which are vested in a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central Act 5 of 1908) while trying a suit in respect of the following matters,-
(a) discovery and inspection;
(b) enforcing the attendance of witnesses and requiring the deposits for their expenses;
(c) compelling the production of documents;
(d) examination of witnesses on oath;
(e) granting adjournments ;
(f) reception of evidence taken on affidavit;
(g) issuing commission for the examination of witnesses and for local inspection;
(h) setting aside exparte orders;
(i) enlargement of time originally fixed or granted;
(j) power to amend any defect or error in orders or proceedings; and
(k) power to review its own order.
(2) The Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority may summon and examine suo motu any person whose evidence appears to it to be material, and it shall be deemed to be a Civil Court within the meaning of sections 345 and 346 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Central Act 2 of 1974).
47. Penalties.– (1) Where any tenant sub-lets, assigns or otherwise parts with the possession of the whole or part of any building in contravention of the provisions of clause (b) of sub – section (2) of section 19, the Rent Control Court may impose on the tenant a fine of five thousand rupees or double the rent received by the tenant for sub-letting for every month till such time the cause of the complaint ceases, whichever is more and the amount shall be paid to the landlord.
(2) Where a landlord contravenes the provisions of the sub-section (2) of section 27, the Rent Control Court may impose a fine which may extend to six months’ rent of the building and may be ordered to be paid to the tenant.
(3) Where the tenant has delivered possession and the landlord fails to commence the work of repairs of the building or reconstruction, as the case may be, within three months from the specified date under sub-section (1) of section 28, the Rent Control Court may impose a fine equivalent to rent for three months and the same shall be ordered to be paid to the tenant.
(4) Where a tenant fails to make re-entry under subsection (2) of section 27 within three months from the date of the completion of repairs of the building or reconstruction, as the case may be, after receipt of the intimation in writing by the landlord, the Rent Control Court may impose a fine equivalent to three months’ rent of the building and may be ordered to be paid to the landlord.
48. Time within which proceedings have to be completed.– The Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority shall, pass final orders in any proceedings before it within six months from the date of appearance of the parties thereto.
49. Power to make rules.– (1) The Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make rules for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this Act.
(2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing powers such rules may provide for,-
(a) the manner in which the application under sub-section
(1) of section 8 shall be made;
(b) the manner of depositing rent and other charges payable under sub-section (1) of section 13;
(c) the manner of sending copy of application to the landlord under sub-section (2) of section 13;
(d) the manner in which the rent or other charges to be paid to the applicant under sub-section (3) of section 13;
(e) the manner in which the entry and the inspection by the landlord or a person authorised by him in a building under subsection (2) of section 18 shall be conducted;
(f) the manner in which application under sub-section( 2) of section 20 shall be made;
(g) the manner in which permission of the Rent Control Court shall be obtained by the landlord under sub-section (1) of section 27;
(h) any other matter which has to be or may be prescribed; and
(i) all matters expressly required or allowed by this Act to be prescribed.
(3) Every rule under this Act shall be laid as soon as may be after it is made before the Legislative Assembly while it is in session for a total period of fourteen days which may be comprised in one session or in two successive sessions, and if before the expiry of the session in which it is so laid or the session immediately following, the Legislative Assembly makes any modification in the rule or decides that the rule should not be made, the rule shall thereafter have effect only in such modified form or be of no effect, as the case may be, so, however, that any such modification or annulment shall be without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under that rule.
50. Exemptions.– Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the Government may, in public interest or for any other sufficient cause, by notification in the Gazette, exempt any building or class of buildings from all or any of the provisions of this Act.
51. Protection of action taken in good faith.- (1) No suit, prosecution or other legal proceedings shall lie against any person for anything which is in good faith done or intended to be done in pursuance of this Act or any rule, order or direction made or issued thereunder.
(2) No suit or other legal proceedings shall lie against the Government, any officer or authority for any damage caused or likely to be caused by anything which is in good faith done or intended to be done in pursuance of this Act, any rule, order or direction made or issued thereunder.
52. Power to remove difficulties.– (1) If any difficulty arises in giving effect to the provisions of this Act, the Government may, before the expiry of two years from the date of commencement of this Act, by order do anything not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act which appears to it necessary for removing the difficulty.
(2) Every order issued under sub-section (1) shall be laid, as soon as may be after it is issued, before the Legislative Assembly.
53. Repeal and savings.– (1) The Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (2 of 1965) is hereby repealed.
(2) Not withstanding such repeal, the Rent Control Courts and the Appellate Authorities constituted under the repealed Act shall continue to be the Rent Control Courts and the Appellate Authorities, as the case may be, constituted under this Act.
(3) All investigations and proceedings pending before the Rent Control Courts and Appellate Authorities immediately before the commencement of this Act may be continued in accordance with the provisions of this Act.

Life love

About


About.

Payment of deposit of rent during the pendency of proceedings for eviction


Tenant to be evicted and not entitled to contest any eviction proceeding unless he pays or deposit all admitted arrears of rent.  That is unless the tenant pays all arrears of rent that is admitted and continues to pay rent, he cannot contest the eviction petition, and he can be evicted if he fails to pay arrears within the time allotted by the court.

12. (1) No tenant against whom an application for eviction has been made by a landlord under Section 11, shall be entitled to contest the application before the Rent Control Court under that section, or to prefer an appeal under section 18 against any order made by the Rent Control Court on the application unless he has paid or pays to the landlord, or deposits with the Rent Control Court or the appellate authority, as the case may be, all arrears of rent admitted by the tenant to be due in respect of the building up to the date of payment or deposit, and continues to pay or to deposit any rent which may subsequently become due in respect of the building, until the termination of the proceedings before the Rent Control Court or the appellate authority, as the case may be.
(2) The deposit under sub-section (1) shall be made within such time as the Court may fix and in such manner as may be prescribed and shall be accompanied by the fee prescribed for the service of notice referred to in sub-section (4):

Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the deposit of the arrears of rent shall not be less than four weeks from the date of the order and the time fixed for the deposit of rent which subsequently accrues due shall not be less than two weeks from the date on which the rent becomes due.

(3) If any tenant fails to pay or to deposit the rent as aforesaid, the Rent Control Court or the appellate authority, as the case may be, shall, unless the tenant shows sufficient cause to the contrary, stop all further proceedings and make an order directing the tenant to put landlord in possession of the building.

(4) When any deposit is made under sub-section (1), the Rent Control Court or the appellate authority, as the case may be, shall cause notice of the deposit to be served on the landlord in the prescribed manner and the amount deposited may, subject to such condition as may be prescribed, be withdrawn by the landlord on application made by him to the Rent Control Court or the appellate authority in that behalf.

1. Scope
A tenant cannot contest an eviction proceeding unless he deposits or pay all arrears of rent admitted to be paid upto the date of payment and continues to pay or deposit, as the case may be, until the termination of the proceedings in the Rent Control Court and the tenant cannot prefer an appeal before an appellate authority unless he pays or deposit the admitted rent.
The Special restriction for contest is applicable only to the Section 11 proceedings. The section 12 bars the defenses and other remedies of a tenant who fails to make payments of rent due from him to the prosecuting landlord for eviction on any of the grounds under Section 11. The mandate “shall not be entitled to contest” would clear the doubt, when it is read with the words “unless he has paid or pays to” that unless the tenant fulfills his primary duty, all his rights are extinguished.
The court should act with great caution before striking out the defense of a tenant under this provision. The provisions should not be given any wider operation than that could have been strictly intended by the legislature.
The stage of striking off the defence is before the hearing of the case is taken up and it cannot, therefore, be referable to the result in the case which remains unknown at that stage.
The disability of the tenant contemplated in section 12 follows the proceedings before a Civil Court under Section 11(1) second proviso. The presence of this Section does not bar the remedy available to the landlord to file a suit for arrears of rent in a Civil Court. Section 12 (3) of the Act is not discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The tenant is bound to deposit the entire arrears of rent at the rate admitted by them. Any claim for setoff will invariably involves enquiry which is not warranted under section 12. When the relationship of landlord and tenant is disputed, the deposit of admitted arrears is not contemplated.
This section has application only during a petition for eviction under section 11. This section cannot be put into service in a petition for fixation of fair rent under section 5. Fair rent fixed by Rent Control Court, against which tenant filed appeal. Appellate Authority has no jurisdiction either to order eviction or deposit of rent under S.12 of the Act.

2. Tenant not entitled to contest
The tenant is not entitled to contest the original petition unless he deposit and continue to deposit the arrears of rent which is admitted by him. The legislature considered payment of rent to the landlord is considered as the primary duty of the tenant. Unless that obligation is fulfilled the tenant is not given right to contest the petition.
Under S.12, the petitioner is entitled to contest the petition only if he deposits the arrears of rent. If he fails to do that, he has no right to contest the petition: the result is that the petition will go uncontested and end in an order for eviction against the petitioner. Once the petition came to a close and passed an order for eviction, there was no further occasion or right for the petitioner to contest the petition for eviction on depositing the arrears of rent since there was no petition to contest. If at all he could reopen the petition, it could be only by way of review under O.47 R.1(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure read with S.23(k) of the Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act.

3. Arrears of rent admitted
The word ‘rent’ or ‘admitted arrears’ are not defined in the Act. Section 12 proceedings can be involved against the tenant only when the arrears of rent is admitted. The deposit contemplated under Section 12 is not the amount determined after adjudication, but is of the rent admitted by the tenant.
Since the Act 2 of 1965 does not define the word admitted or does not distinguish the same from the meaning given to the word “admission” of Section 17 of the Indian Evidence Act, the meaning put to it under the Indian Evidence Act has to be adopted here. Section 17 of the Indian Evidence Act reads as follows: –

The admission contemplated under Section 12(1) of the Act 2 of 1965 need not be an admission in the proceedings itself.
Admissions must be clear, and unambiguous if they are to be used against the person making them. They are substantive evidence by themselves in view of Sections 17-21 of the Evidence Act, though they are not conclusive proof of the matters admitted. So the arrears of rent admitted need not be actual amount to be paid as in respect of the building by the tenant. The admissions duly proved are admissible evidence irrespective of whether the party making them appeared in the witness box or not and whether such party when appearing as witness was confronted with those statements in case it made a statement contrary to those admissions. An admission is a strong piece of evidence, admissible and binding unless explained away. Section 17 of the Evidence Act does not make any distinction between an admission made by a party in a pleading and other documents. An admission by a party in plaint signed and verified by him may be used as evidence against him in other suits, though it cannot be regarded as conclusive. Admission of a claim is a positive act and it cannot be inferred from any negative or indifferent attitude of the person concerned.
Mere silence does not amount to admission. The statements made in affidavit filed in another case containing admissions may amount to be admissions.
Deposit contemplated under S.12(1) is the rent admitted by tenant. It is not of the amount which is found to be due from the tenant after an adjudication of the dispute between the landlord and the tenant as to the actual amount due as rent. The basis for determining what is the admitted rent is the written statement or objection filed by the tenant. Tenant has obligation to pay or deposit only arrears of rent which are legally recoverable from him. He is not liable to deposit or pay time barred rent under this section.
The liability of the tenant under section 11(2) c is only to pay or deposit the rent due at the time of notice and he need not deposit arrears of rent up to the date of petition and the rent which accrues due thereafter during the pendency of the proceedings. In a case where an order of eviction has been passed under S.11 (2) (b) of the Act, S.11 (2) (c) alone is attracted and S.12 is inapplicable. To invoke S.12 an independent order, under S.12, passed during the pendency of the proceeding is required.

4. Continues to Pay
A tenant is entitled to contest an application only if he pays or deposit all arrears of rent admitted and continues to pay or deposit any rent which may subsequently become due until the termination of the proceedings and the time fixed for the deposit of rent which subsequently become due shall not be less than 2 weeks from the date on which the rent become due.

Tenant is bound to deposit the admitted arrears already accrued and the arrears accruing during the pendency of proceeding. His failure to do so entitles the landlord to an order putting him in possession of the building. The tenant has to pay not only the arrears of rent admitted by him but also the rent which admittedly falls due in respect of the building subsequent to the commencement of the rent control proceedings. If such rent is not paid, Rent Control Court is bound to pass summary order of eviction of tenant.
Payment of admitted arrears and of the rent, which falls due subsequently, have already been passed by the Rent Control Court. The liability of the respondent to pay the rent, which has fallen due subsequent to the passage of such order is statutory and therefore it is not necessary to pass order under S.12(2) once again.

5. Minimum time for deposit: –
The subsection 12(2) of the Act lays down the conditions and time limit for the deposit to be made under Section 12(1). The proviso to Section 12(2) prescribes that the time should not be less than four weeks from the date of the order. But the time to be fixed for deposit of arrears subsequently accrues should not be less than 2 weeks.
Since the time fixed under this section is a time fixed by the Court, the provisions of Section 23(i) of the Act enables the Court to enlarge the time by invoking the provisions of Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure. So the Court can enlarge the time upto 30 days even if the time fixed has been already expired.
An opportunity be given to the tenant after the expiry of the time fixed for deposit of arrears of rent before passing the order under S.12 (3) of the Act. If the tenant does not pay the arrears of rent even after he had been given sufficient time, the landlord is entitled for an order of eviction under section 12(3).
There was no reason for the tenant as to why she could not file the schedule immediately after the passing of an order and instead waiting for the expiry of time and filing the schedule just the day prior to the last day and therefore the Rent Controller was justified in striking off the defense.

6. The sufficient cause for non deposit
The sufficient cause depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Sufficient cause should not be the financial disability of the tenant. But other reasonable circumstances, which prevented him from making deposit in time, can be a sufficient cause. The cause put forward by the tenant must be one which satisfies the judicial mind.
Rent Control Court or Appellate Authority where admitted rent has not been deposited by the tenant is not required to issue a separate notice to show sufficient cause for default but has to direct the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building. Order of eviction passed on ground of non-deposit of rent, under this section, No application is filed by the tenant before Rent Controller for condoning default. On the contrary Tenant denied landlord tenant relationship. Plea taken by him before Supreme Court that he was under mistaken belief hence did not deposit arrears and therefore default may be condoned. Such a plea cannot be considered as ‘sufficient cause’ for condoning default. The Rent Control Court directed the tenant to pay the arrears of rent or to show cause why further proceedings should not be stopped and the landlord put in possession. It is upto the tenant to pay arrears or to show why an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession should not be passed. The tenant cannot rush to the Appellate Authority. S. 18 does not permit him to challenge such an order in appeal.
The tenant has to be called upon to make good the shortfall before invoking the power under sub-s.(3) of S.12. In the absence of any such adjudication, it cannot be said that reasonable and real opportunity was given to the tenant to deposit the admitted arrears or to show cause against the default.

7. Appeal by landlord
The prohibition under section 12 applies for contesting the application before the Rent Control Court and when the tenant prefers appeal under section 18. When the landlord prefers appeal this section has got no application. Even during that period the tenant may be liable to pay rent, but landlord cannot seek remedy under section 12. The landlord may file a fresh petition for arrears of rent if the tenant is not paying rent during the appeal period.
In an appeal filed by the landlord the tenant is not bound to make the deposit. Landlord who filed appeal cannot file petition under section 12.

8. Consequence of non-payment
The section 12(3) deals with the consequence of non-deposit of arrears of rent as contemplated in section 12(2). The Section 12(1) also stipulates the deposit by admitted arrears of rent as a condition precedent for contest in the application. The subsection 3 regulates the procedure of the mandate laid down in Section 12(1) as to pass an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building after giving him due chance for showing sufficient cause.
Once the Rent Control Court passed an order for eviction under section 12, there is no further occasion or right for the tenant/petitioner to contest the petition for eviction on depositing the admitted arrears of rent since there is no petition to contest.

9. Subsequent Payment
Once the Rent Controller passed an order for eviction there is no further occasion for the tenant to deposit the arrears and contest the matter. Subsequent deposit cannot be a ground for a review of the order. An order passed under Section 12 (3) for failure to deposit the admitted arrears within the time specified cannot be set aside on subsequent payment. Tenant depositing the rent after the due date and landlord withdrawing the amount- then the landlord has waived his right to apply for striking off the defense of tenant.
Order passed under section 12 (3) cannot be vacated by the court under section 11(2) (c) on payment of arrears of rent subsequently, Section 11 & 12 are not dependent on each other.

10. Execution of orders under section 12
The authority mentioned in Section 14 shall execute the order passed under section 12. There was no specific provision in the Act 2 of 1965 for executing the orders passed under this section till 1966. Vide Act 7 of 1966 section 12 also was put in the purview of section 14 of the Act, but vide Act 8 of 1968 the said Amendment Act 7 of 1966 was repealed. While considering this issue our High Court held that, even in the absence of mention of Section 12 in Section 14, such an order is executable. (Section 14 has been amended subsequently and incorporated section 12.)

This provision is applicable to execution proceedings also. To invoke S.12 an independent order under S. 12, passed during the pendency of the proceeding is required.

11. Rent deposited U/s 12 of the Act.
What is imposed by S.12 (1) is the obligation to deposit arrears of rent admitted by the tenant to be due, whereas what is envisaged in S.11 (2) (c) is to deposit the actual arrears of rent. Under section 11 (2), the court can legitimately exercise adjudicatory process in order to determine the actual rent payable under law. Benefit of S.11 (2) (c) can be availed of by a tenant only by depositing the actual arrears of rent, while for discharging the obligation of the tenant under S.12 (1), he need not necessarily deposit the actual arrears of rent.
Section 12 of the Act has no application to a case wherein an order of eviction has been passed by the court under S.11 (2) (b) of the Act. To invoke S.12 an independent order, under S.12, passed during the pendency of the proceeding is required.

Own Use


A landlord may apply to the Rent Control Court for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building if he bona fide needs the building for his own occupation or for the occupation by any member of his family dependent on him.
Provided that the Rent Control Court shall not give any such direction if the landlord has another building of his own in his possession in the same city, town or village except where the Rent Control Court is satisfied that for special reasons, in any particular case it will be just and proper to do so:
Provided further that the Rent Control Court shall not give any direction to a tenant to put the landlord in possession, if such tenant is depending for his livelihood mainly on the income derived from any trade or business carried on in such building and there is no other suitable building available in the locality for such person to carry on such trade or business:
Provided further that no landlord whose right to recover possession arises under an instrument of transfer inter vivos shall be entitled to apply to be put in possession until the expiry of one year from the date of the instrument:
Provided further that if a landlord after obtaining an order to be put in possession transfers his rights in respect of the building to another person, the transferee shall not be entitled to be put in possession unless he proves that he bona fide needs the building for his own occupation or for the occupation by any member of his family dependent on him.

1. Object

Another ground provided to the landlord to evict his tenant is for his own occupation or for the occupation by any member of his family dependent on him. The bonafide need of the landlord is to be proved and the burden of proof is on the landlord. The Act is basically conceived in the interest of the tenants protecting them from being evicted illegally and arbitrarily. Therefore the onus is heavy on the landlord to establish the bonafide requirement.
The right of the tenant to occupy the property belonging to another person cannot be put above the ground of own requirement of the landlord. The landlord is entitled to get an order of eviction when the conditions imposed by the Act are satisfied.
There are four provisos for this section mentioned along with the relevant section and there is another proviso incorporated in the Act in section 11 (17) each of these five provisos restrict the landlord’s right to get the building for his own occupation. The provisos protect the tenant from eviction under certain circumstances. The circumstances are;
i. The Landlord has another building in his possession
ii. The tenant is depending on the business conducted in the building for his livelihood.
iii. there is no other building available in the locality for conducting the business of the tenant.
iv. Landlord got right of possession within one year
v. Tenancy commenced after 1940
vi. Tenancy period is over.

The provision of the statute cannot be stretched to such an extent that every claim put forward as bonafide need is preordinated to culminate in an order of eviction. The court is to rest its decision on totality of the circumstances. The concept of bonafide personal necessity should be meaningfully construed so as to make the relief granted to the landlord real and practical. Question of bona fides is certainly relevant not only in S.11(3) and S.11(8) but also in S.11(7).
The cause of action for eviction of several tenants occupying different portions of the same building on the ground of S.11(3) is a common or joint cause of action, a single petition is maintainable, especially when no prejudice is caused to tenants.

2. Own occupation
The provisions in this Act enabling the landlord to get possession of the building for own occupation is in public interest, for if the landlord is to be always excluded from occupying his house, persons with money will never invest in houses.
Even if the use may be intermittent or seasonal in nature the landlord cannot be denied his right under section 11 (3). The word “reasonable”, connotes that the requirement or need is not fanciful or unreasonable. The word “requirement” coupled with the word reasonable means that it must be something more than a mere desire but need not certainly be a compelling or absolute or dire necessity. It may be a need in present or within reasonable proximity in the future. A landlord need not lose his existing job or resign from it or reach a level of starvation to consider about getting possession of his premises for establishing a business.
It is for the landlord of the building to decide whether it needs reconstruction or whether he should have it for his purpose. It is his property; and he is the best judge on that matter. If a claim is made by the landlord for possession of the building on such a ground, Rent Controller, is not entitled to say that the landlord need not have it for reasons of his own. All that he is entitled to do is to enquire whether the need is bona fide, or whether it is only a pretext to evict a tenant. The right to reconstruct a building or to have it for the landlord’s own purposes is a very valid right attached to the property.

3. Landlord under section 11 (3)

According to the wide definition of “landlord” the building owner himself need not be the landlord. But for the purpose of this sub-section the ownership of the building has to be vested with the landlord. Further trustee landlord can apply under this section, but an agent-landlord cannot.
Though the definition of the landlord is couched in a very wide language, the landlord who is an owner and who would have a right to occupy the building in his own right alone can seek possession for his own use. Company which is a juristic person is also entitled to claim eviction under S.11(3) of the Act.
Requirement of the building for use of the company in which the landlord is a director cannot be considered as bonafide requirement of landlord.

4. Bonafide need
The main condition to be satisfied for an eviction under this sub-section is that the need of the landlord for own occupation is bonafide. For proving the bonafides the landlord may bring evidence of his necessity, desire, the preparations made by him for using the building for his proposed need. The circumstances would show the need is bonafide or not.
The landlord must prove that he genuinely requires the accommodation for the purpose of his own use. The mere desire of the landlord is not sufficient. The finding that the landlord bonafide required the premises for own occupation is one of fact. Bonafide requirement is a question of fact. Just an expression of desire would not entitle the landlord to get a decree for eviction
A bonafide requirement must be an outcome of a sincere and honest desire in contradistinction with a mere pretext for evicting the tenant on the part of the landlord claiming to occupy the premises for himself or for any member of the family which would entitle the landlord to seek ejectment of the tenant. The question to be asked by a judge of facts by placing himself in the place of the landlord is whether in the given facts proved by the material on record the need to occupy the premises can be said to be natural, real, sincere and honest. The concept of bonafide need or genuine requirement needs a practical approach instructed by the realities of life. In Deena Nath v. Pooran Lal (2001 (5) SCC 705) this Court reiterated that bona fide requirement has to be distinguished from a mere whim or fanciful desire. The bona fide requirement is in praesenti and must be manifested in actual need so as to convince the court that it is not a mere fanciful or whimsical desire.

It is unnecessary to make endeavour as to how else landlord could adjust himself. The fact that there is cordial relationship between land lady and her daughter-in-law or that she is comfortably residing in present building are not relevant. When a landlady who is living with her own family with her parents thinks that she should have an independent and separate establishment, normally it is a most justified claim. The question whether the son should reside separately after the marriage is a matter, which exclusively depends upon the attitude of the son and Parents it is not always necessary that there should be difference of opinion or quarrel to justify a separate residence.
Persistent demand or even compulsion on the part of the landlord for procuring early eviction does not show that the need projected by the landlord is not genuine. Nature of businesses of the landlord proposes to conduct is a matter of evidence and lack of specific pleadings is not very material. Financial capacity of the landlord is a circumstance that favours the desire to start a business and not a fact against the landlord. The pleading regarding bonafide need should be specific a vague, hazy and indefinite pleading regarding the purpose for which the building si required will result in gross prejudice to the tenant.
Attempt by landlord to sell away the tenanted premises to the tenant is not fatal to the plea under section 11 (3).
It is not for the Rent Control Court to decide whether the house is suited to the requirement of the landlord or not. If the bona fide requirement is established, then the absence of facilities or lack of ventilation, air etc. is not very material as it is for the landlord to live in his own house with all its defects and faults. Landlord is the best Judge of his requirements. The Courts have no concern to dictate how and in what manner he should live. It is for the Landlord to decide what modifications has to be made in the building for the residential purpose and the tenant cannot say that it is not suitable for residential purpose of the landlord.
A building used for a non residential purpose can be claimed for residential purpose of the landlord. It is for the landlord to decide in what manner the space is to be utilized and what are the modifications or additions, alteration etc. have to be made in the building. The tenant cannot dictate in what manner the landlord should make use of the building. It is the landlord who decides as to how the building could be put to their beneficial use. Landlord is the best judge of his requirement, courts cannot dictate how and in what manner landlord should live. It is trite that, it is not for the tenant to dictate to the landlord how to satisfy his need. When the landlord has a sufficiently spacious room owned by it, there is nothing wrong in the landlord wanting possession of the said room for its need.

Gift deed executed only to evict the tenant on facts it was proved to be sham document. There is no bonafide need.
If the need put forward is bonafide, the fact that the pathway made after demolition of the building would be used by others and landlord or by his tenants, will not take away the need. Eviction sought for by the landlord of the tenanted premises so as to use it as a pathway for the proposed multi-storied building will come within the scope of Section 11 (3) and not under 11 (4)1V. Building needed bonefidely to be demolished to make a pathway to buildings belonging to the landlord which are in occupation of landlord’s tenants is a bonafide requirement. It is for the landlord to decide through which portion he is to provide a way to the rear side of the building. The tenant cannot dictate to the landlord that the pathway should be through another portion. The recovery of site of the building for the purpose of the new construction can be said to be coming within the meaning of section 11(3). Landlord intending to demolish the existing building and put up a new building for his own use, the ground is under section 11 (3) and not one under 11 (4)iv. The need under section 11 (3) will encompass need including demolition and using the space for the landlord’s use. The site of the petition schedule building does not form the area where the proposed construction is to be had. The petition schedule building is to provide the main entrance from the State Highway and that if only the petition schedule building is demolished and removed the materials can be taken to the property for construction of the building. It is not at all possible for the landlord to construct the building, without removing the scheduled building. The need is a genuine bonafide need.

Putting the building to better use is a bonafide requirement. The landlord claimed too many purpose. That itself does not negative the bonafides of the landlord.
The personal necessity envisaged under the Act would include repossession of the demised premises by the landlord for the purpose of its demolition so as to widen the entrance to another building belonging to the landlord in the immediate vicinity.
The tenant cannot dictate the terms to the landlord and advice him what he should do and what he should not. It is always the privilege of the landlord. It is for the landlord to decide whether the space is sufficient for the need. Tenant cannot have a dictatorial role in that assessment of the landlord. Sale of other rented premises is not a ground for holding that the landlord has not proved that he required the building for his own occupation. Tenant cannot decide or dictate whether the building is suitable for the use of the landlord. The tenant cannot dictate to the landlord regarding his need or choice of the building.

Claim of landlord that he needs the building bonafide for his personnel occupation cannot be negatived on ground that building requires repairs and alterations before landlord can occupy the same.
The construction of another building is a bona fide need of the landlord and the petition schedule building is sought to be demolished to provide exit for the proposed building and thereby eviction sought can be styled as one for reconstruction, the landlord has no need to occupy the entire reconstructed building. Such being the factual background, the landlord is entitled to seek an order of eviction only under S.11(4)(iv) and not under S.11(3).

If the application is both under S.11 (3) and 11 (4) iv; the circumstance that the building requires reconstruction for the purpose of own use does not affect or alter the bonafide nature of the landlord’s need under Section 11 (3) (See note ‘Sec 11(3) and Sec 11 (4) iv’ under Section 11 4 (iv))
The periodical requests for enhancement of rent as such are not a ground to hold that there is no bonafides in the plea for eviction. The mere fact that landlord demanded higher rent on previous occasions which the tenant declined to oblige is not a reflection of any oblique motive on the part of landlord claiming eviction on the ground of his own need to occupy the building. It is only normal propensity of a landlord to desire increase in the rent for this building from time to time. Such a desire expressed is not a mark of misconduct in landlord-tenant relationship. No presumption of malafides can be drawn just because the tenant declined to increase the rent demanded by the landlord. Demand for increased rent is not a bar for claiming eviction on the ground of bonafide need or any other ground. Demand for periodical increase in rent cannot be so unreasonable and unjust so as to deny an otherwise just and genuine claim for vacant possession. Landlord asking for more rent will not affect the bonafides of claim under section 11 (3).
The bonafide requirement of the landlord should be objectively tested but the landlord need not establish that it is a dire need. In order to constitute Bona fide requirement there must be an element of need as opposed to a mere desire or wish of the landlord.

Eviction ordered on the ground that landlord required the premises bonafide for the purpose of business after demolishing the present building and putting up a new building in place. Since the order of eviction is based mainly under section 11 (3) the obligation to provide accommodation to the tenant in the new building will not arise.
The mere fact that the Landlord had constructed a building in another property and rented it out to another tenant by itself is not a ground to hold that there is no bonafide. Giving some other premises on rent prior to the institution of petition does not lead to a presumption that there was absence of bonafides in a petition under section 11 (3). The need of dependent family member must also be shown to be bonafide. Possessions of other buildings by these dependents are to be considered. Shifting of residence after the petition is not a ground for rejection of petition. The appellant living in a room of the huge building which does not exclusively belong to him, cannot be said that his requirement to occupy the premises for his residence and professional requirements is not reasonable and bona fide.
The eviction was sought on the ground that the premises were required for starting some business. The particulars of the trade were not given in the pleadings. Held that the precise nature of the business proposed to be conducted is not required to be stated in the pleading and that is a matter for evidence.
Landlord is not bound to disclose the details of his bonafide need and inconvenience experienced by him. Landlord was forced to surrender the building he was occupying to KFC. The landlord needs to get his tenanted building is bonafide.
While assessing bonafide need of the landlord court need not consider landlord’s social status, which prohibits him to start a ‘C’ class shop. Discontinuance of the business by the landlord for a temporary period cannot prohibit him from claiming the benefit to his favour.

It is for the landlord of the building to decide whether it needs reconstruction or whether he should have it for his purpose. It is his property; and he is the best judge on that matter. If a claim is made by the landlord for possession of the building, Rent Controller, is not entitled to say that the landlord need not have it for reasons of his own. All that he is entitled to do is to enquire whether the need is bona fide, or whether it is only a pretext not to lease out the building or to evict a tenant, as the case may be. The right to reconstruct a building or to have it for the landlord’s own purposes is a very valid right attached to the property.
Requirement of landlord is to be established as a genuine and bonafide need and not a pretext to get the tenanted premises. Heavy burden would lie on the tenant to prove that the requirement of the landlord is not genuine. Hence, mere assertion on part of tenant will not be sufficient to rebut the strong presumption in landlord’s favour.

There is no obligation on the part of retired Catholic Priests to reside in common residences provided by the Church. In any case residence in such common house cannot be termed as a matter of faith. The Priests may or may not choose to avail of any such facility which may be provided by the Church. Therefore the need set up by the landlord to retire and to live in the petition schedule building cannot be termed as a irrational need or a ground set up merely for evicting the tenants.

5. Right of Choice
The landlord is entitled to choose the building suitable for his purpose. if there are two or more premises the landlord could choose which one would be preferable to him or her and the tenant cannot question such preference. Power of landlord to pick and choose a particular room from among several tenants cannot be questioned in the absence of an oblique motive.


6. Landlord’s experience to do business

Fact that the landlord is a retired person and has no experience in business does not prevent him from starting his own business. Previous experience is not a precondition for seeking eviction on the ground of bonafide need to conduct business. Lack of experience of the landlord to run the business is not a bar to allow eviction on the ground of own use.
It need not be shown that landlord has know how for starting business. If a person wants to start new business of his own it may be to his own advantage if he acquires experience in that line. Experience can be earned even while the business is in progress. Lack of experience of landlords to run the business, is not a criterion to deny the landlord his building for own use.

Petitioner being a partner of a firm would enable him to evict the tenant for the need of the firm. Question of making arrangement for starting a business in a rented building can arise only after the owners gets possession of the building.

Law does not require that impeanious (poor) Landlord alone can think of starting an income generating activity in order that need set up will pass through the test of bonafide. Law does not insist that a Landlord having other source of income shall not carry on another income earning activity or venture to start a new business.
Examination of Power of attorney holder is not sufficient to prove the bonafide of the landlord. The landlord has neither established his need for own occupation nor that the need alleged was bonafide.

7. Dependent
Mother gifted the building to her daughter and continued to receive rent but it is insufficient to sustain the maintainability of petition for eviction. Previous written consent is necessary. Mother cannot ask for eviction of the tenant for her bonafide need. Or the mother should prove that she is depended on her daughter.
Non examination of dependent son of the landlord is not fatal to a petition for own use and occupation of the son. In order to assess whether the landlord bonafidely or genuinely requires a building can be assessed by court only by examining the landlord or the dependent son. The need for occupation of a dependent of the landlord can be proved on evidence of the dependent as witness.

Dependency does not mean financial dependency. There must be sufficient pleading that they are dependent upon the landlord so that the tenant could disprove the dependency. Dependency does not mean financial dependency. A daughter is dependent on the mother in spite of the fact that she has an independent income. The landlord had left the country three months after the institution of the eviction petition. But, the need projected in the eviction petition was of his wife as well. It cannot be said that the claim for eviction on the ground of bona fide need has extinguished. Landlord can seek eviction of tenant from building for his own occupation along with any of his dependents.
Dependency of the member should be pleaded and proved. Mere fact that husband is a member of the family does not presuppose his dependency on his wife.
The word dependent means a person who would in the normal course look up to the landlord to provide him with the facility of a building possessed by the landlord. A younger brother can also be said to be dependent on the elder brother for his needs. Daughter in law will come within the expression of dependent of landlord in section 11 (3) of the Act. The Act does not put any fetters on the landlord to accommodate his son in law. Dependency is not merely a matter of physical or pecuniary need.
The courts have found that wife, a widowed daughter and her children, married son, married daughter, Son in law, sister’s son, adopted son, husband, even a remote relative in certain circumstances treated as dependent. These relations may not be depended on the landlord financially, they depend on the landlord for the building in his ownership.
Dependency does not mean financial dependency, but dependency for the building which belong to the landlord. There must be sufficient pleading that they are dependent upon the landlord so that the tenant could disprove the dependency.


8. Hardship

The question whether or not there would be greater hardship caused to the tenant by passing the decree must necessarily depend on facts and circumstances of each case. Availability of alternate accommodation is an important but not the decisive factor. Whether serious efforts are made by the tenant to find out alternative building for his purpose is to be taken into account. Where the landlord proves his bonafide requirement and the tenant fails to prove his contention that he tried to find out alternate accommodation, the question of comparative hardship is to be decided in favour of the landlord. The plea of comparative hardship by the tenant is to be rejected when during the pendency of the petition for the last as many as 22 years; the tenant did not make any effort to secure alternate accommodation. Relative financial positions have no relevance while considering the comparative advantages and hardships to the parties.

The relative financial position of parties can be taken into consideration, but cannot be carried to extreme length of holding that the rich man be exposed to denials with a view to be charitable to the poor man, for the simple reason that it is not proper for the courts to be charitable at the expense of the parties. Then an affluent landlord can never get possession of his premises, in spite of his bonafide needs.
Offer by the landlord of alternate accommodation has to be given due consideration.
Where the requirement of the landlord is bona fide and reasonable, fact that tenancy was created before about fifty years back is not be a bar on the landlord for claiming the building for own use.
Long possession has no material bearing on the question of comparative hardship, and is likely to loose thousands of rupees which the customers owned him, it has been held that this is a natural hardship not amounting to ‘greater hardship’. Goodwill built in the premises is not a ground to deny eviction.
The burden of proof is on the tenant to prove the comparative hardship. It must be remembered that the landlord is claiming possession of his own house and that for his own use. Unless the tenant alleges and proves that his hardship is greater than the landlord, the benefit naturally goes to the landlord. Thus it can be said that the burden of proving greater hardship is on the tenant. In an eviction petition on the ground of own use the landlord is not supposed to plead in his plaint his comparative hardship.
The hardship landlord would suffer by not occupying their own premises would be far greater than the hardship the tenant would suffer by having to move out to another place. Whenever a tenant is asked to move out of the premises some hardship is inherent. That hardship can be mitigated by granting him longer period to move out of the premises in his occupation, so that in the meantime he can make alternative arrangement.

9. Section 11 (17) and S.11 (3)
Section 11 (17) is a proviso to section 11 (3) and prohibits the landlord to evict a tenant who is in continuous occupation from 1940 under section 11 (3). This is a personal privilege to the original tenant, heirs of the tenant will not get this personal privilege.
Section 11 (17) or rather this proviso has a proviso which cut short the ambit of this sub section. That proviso allows a landlord to file an application on the ground of own use if the building concerned is a residential building and that the landlord has been living for more than five years in a place outside the city town or village in which the building is situated but this application must be for
1. his own permanent residence, or
2. for the permanent residence of any member of his family, or
3. the landlord is in dire need of a place for residence and has none of his own.

Sub-section (17) is designed to give some additional protection to certain classes of tenants and in that sense it operates as a proviso to Section 11 (3). The burden of pleading and proving that he was in continuous occupation from 1940 is on the tenant. It is for the tenant to establish that he was in occupation prior to 1-4-1940. Execution of a fresh lease deed will not extinguish right under S. 11 (17). The protection under Section 11 (17) given to tenant in occupation from 1940 can be claimed only by a tenant who is sought to be evicted under section 11 (3) and not by a tenant who is sought to be evicted under Section 11 (8).
This section further prohibits the landlord to evict a tenant on the ground of own use where the tenant has been in continuous occupation of the building from 1st April 1940 as a tenant who has been in occupation. This is a personal right and can be availed of by the tenant and not by his successors.

This subsection is a clog on eviction on the ground of own use from tenants who started their occupation prior to 1st April 1940 and has been continuing the same. This is a further proviso to section 11 (3). Detailed discussion under 11 (17).

10. Redelivery of building to the tenan
t
The tenant has got right to redelivery of the building from which he is evicted, if the landlord who has obtained possession under the ground of own use, and has not occupied the building without reasonable cause within one month or if he vacates the building within six months.
Landlords asserted that there was no other means of livelihood with them and as such they wanted to set up their own business in the disputed premises. It was not necessary for the landlords to reveal the precise nature of the business which they intended to start in the premises. Even if the nature of business would have been indicated nobody could bind the landlords to start the same business in the premises.

12. Condition precedent and Subsequent for eviction under S. 11 (3): an aerial view

These are condition precedent as well as subsequent for reserving an eviction under this sub-section. In other words, if the landlord wants an eviction of his tenant on the ground of own use then he has to prove;
1. He bona fide needs the building.
2. He has no other building of his own in his possession, if he has other buildings he has to prove special reasons to have this building.
3. The tenant has other income and that the tenant is not depending on this trade or business carried on in such building for his livelihood. and
4. There are other suitable buildings available in the locality for the tenant to carry on such trade or business.
5. The landlord got his right over the property prior to one year. (if he got the right from a living person)
6. The landlord should not transfer his decreetal right to any other person i.e. he has to execute the eviction order himself, otherwise the transferee has to prove his bona fide need.
7. The tenancy commenced after 1940. (s. 11 (17) ((Personal right of the tenant, hence the legal heirs will not get the protection),
8. If the tenancy is commenced before 1940 the landlord is living outside the city town or village for more than 5 years and, (s. 11(17)
a. Requires the building bona fide for his own permanent residence or, )s. 11(17)
b. For the permanent residence of any member of his family or, (s.11(17).
c. The landlord is in dire need for a place for residence and has none of his own. (s. 11 (17).

9. Landlord who got evicted the tenant on s.11 (3) must occupy the premises within one month of date of obtaining possession and should not vacate it within six months. The court can order redelivery of possession of the tenant under section 11 (12) if the landlord is not able to show reasonable cause for such non-occupation or vacation as the case may be.