Model Rent Agreement

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide line to the subject matter. Professional advice should be sought about your specific needs and circumstances.

This deed of LEASE is executed on this the ___^th  day of [Month], 20__ between [Name of Building Owners] (Aadhar Card No. ______ ) aged ___ years, S/O [Name of father], [House Name], [Address], [Post] P.O., PIN – ________, [District] (which expression shall, unless it be repugnant to the context or meaning thereof, include their respective heirs, executors, administrators and assigns) of the ONE PART} (hereinafter referred to as the LEASER) and [Name of Tenant], (Aadhar Card No. ______ )  S/o [Name of father], [House Name], [Address], [Post] P.O., PIN – ________, [District] District (which expression SHALL NOT, unless it be repugnant to the context or meaning thereof include his/her heirs, executors and/or administrators and assigns) of the OTHER PART (hereinafter referred to as the LESSEE).

WHEREAS the leaser is the owner of property in re survey No.___ in Block No.____ in _____________ Village and part of the commercial building therein namely [Name of building complex], [place]. AND

WHEREAS the Lessee approached the owner/Leaser for leasing out the room on the Ground Floor, third room from east in the aforesaid [Name of building complex], [place] having a floor area of ___ sq feet and requested to permit the Lessee to use the said room for functioning it as the [business of the lessee] by the Lessee from [date of commencement of lease] to [date of termination of lease] and the Leaser/owner has accepted the said request and the parties have decided to fulfill the said lease arrangement on the following terms and conditions:-

1. The Lessee is only permitted to use the said room for conducting his [business of the lessee].
2. The Lessee shall in consideration of such lease as provided, pay the owner/Leaser the rent for the leased premises on the first day of every month without any delay or fault per month as follows:

a)                 Though the rent of the building is Rs. {higher rate} the building owner has agreed to give the building on lease to the tenant at a reduced rate of Rs. [Monthly Rental Amount]

b)                 Rent payable from 1.6.2014 to 1.5.2017 shall be Rs.[Monthly Rental Amount] /- per month

c)                  Rent payable from 1.5.2017 to 31.7.2017 (for the month ending on 31.7.2017) shall be Rs.[Monthly Rental Amount] /- per month.

d)                 Tenant agrees to pay, without demand, to Landlord as rent for the building the sum of [Monthly Rental Amount] per month in advance on the first day of each calendar month, at [Address for Rent Payments], or at such other place as Landlord may designate. Landlord may impose a late payment charge of [Late Pay Charge] per day for any amount that is more than five (5) days late. Rent will be prorated if the term does not start on the first day of the month or for any other partial month of the term.

3. If the lessee continues the occupation of the rented building after the period of the tenancy agreed by this deed i.e. after 31.7.2017, the leaser is entitled to receive normal rent without enhancing the rent through a court of law and adducing evidence as to the cause of enhancement of rent as both the parties mutually agreed that the normal rate of rent in the locality is [higher rate] and 20 % yearly enhancement of rent is reasonable and proper in the said area.
4. The lessee agrees to pay 15% of the rent as amenity charge in addition to the rent.
5. The lessee agrees to pay 10% of the rent as maintenance charge in addition to the rent.
6. The Lessee shall reimburse the amount of Service Tax to the Leaser, if Service Tax or any other statutory charges become payable with respect to the leased premises, after the execution of this deed in addition to the monthly rent payable.
7. The Lessee shall pay the additional amount of Municipal taxes to the Leaser, as and when the Municipality enhances the tax as per statutory requirement, in addition to the monthly rent payable, in case the applicable Municipal Taxes are enhanced in excess of 100 % .
8. The Lessee shall also duly pay the electricity and water charges with regard to the schedule building to the Leaser on every due date.   The Revenue Taxes for the leased building in the present rate shall be borne by the owner/Leaser.
9. Upon execution of this Lease, Tenant deposits with Landlord [Security Deposit Amount], as security for the performance by Tenant of the terms of this Lease to be returned to Tenant, Without Interest, following the full and faithful performance by Tenant of this Lease. In the event of damage to the Building caused by Tenant or Tenant’s family, agents or visitors, Landlord may use funds from the deposit to repair, but is not limited to this fund and Tenant remains liable.
10. The Leaser has got the right to realise the rent amount from the lessee and his assets.
11. The Lessee shall not undertake any addition or alternation to the leased room. Any damages to the building and fittings caused during the lease period shall be made good by the Lessee with the permission of the Leaser.
12.          A. Tenant agrees that Tenant has examined the Building, including the grounds and all buildings and improvements, and that they are, at the time of this Lease, in good order, good repair, safe, clean, and tenantable condition.
13. B. Landlord and Tenant agree that a copy of the “Joint Inspection,” the original of which is maintained by Landlord and a copy provided to Tenant, attached hereto reflects the condition of the Building at the commencement of Tenant’s occupancy.
14. A. Tenant shall make no alterations to the Building or construct any building or make other improvements without the prior written consent of Landlord.
15. B. All alterations, changes, and improvements built, constructed, or placed on or around the Building by Tenant, with the exception of fixtures properly removable without damage to the Building and movable personal property, shall, unless otherwise provided by written agreement between Landlord and Tenant, be the property of Landlord and remain at the expiration or earlier termination of this Lease.
16. The Lessee hereby agree to indemnify the Leaser for any loss or damage to property or injury to persons suffered on the Premises as a result of any act or omission by the Lessee or its servants or agents.
17. Tenant will, at Tenant’s sole expense, keep and maintain the building and appurtenances in good and sanitary condition and tenantable repair during the term of this Lease.  In particular, Tenant shall keep the fixtures in the Building in good order and repair; and keep the walks free from dirt and debris.  Tenant shall, at Tenant’s sole expense, make all required repairs to the plumbing, electric fixtures, stair, floors, ceilings and walls whenever damage to such items shall have resulted from Tenant’s misuse, waste, or neglect, or that of the Tenant’s agent, or visitor.
18. The Lessee shall repair any damage caused to the Premises during the Lease Period immediately upon called to do so.
19. The Leaser will be entitled to enter into the leased premises at any time to verify as to the violation of terms of this lease.
20. A. Tenant shall not assign this Lease, or sublet or grant any concession or license to use the Building or any part of the Building without Landlord’s prior written consent.
21. B. Any assignment, subletting, concession, or license without the prior written consent of Landlord, or an assignment or subletting by operation of law, shall be void and, at Landlord’s option, terminate this Lease.
22. The Lessee shall not keep any articles in the leased premises which are not permitted by law and he shall conduct his business abiding all Laws and Rules with respect the same.
23. In case of failure to pay the rent in any of the months, the leaser will be entitled to realise the rent amount with 18% interest per annum.
24. The lease period being the essential condition of this agreement, on the completion of 3 years and the Lessee shall vacate the premises with his articles, if any, on or before the date of expiry of the lease.
25. Any notice given by or either Party in terms of this Agreement shall be given in writing and shall be delivered by hand to a responsible person present at or sent by facsimile transmission or prepaid registered post to the address of the addressee set of below in terms of this Agreement and whereupon it shall be deemed to have been received when so delivered or faxed or 3 business days after being so sent by post.
26. The Lessee shall not knowingly or negligently cause or allow to be caused any obstruction or blockage of any sewerage pipes, drains and other supply equipment and installations serving the Premises and shall remove at his own cost any obstruction or blockage which occurs in such pipes or drain as a result of his actions and, where necessary, shall cause, at his own cost, such sewer, pipe or drain to be repaired.
27. The Lessee shall not do or permit to be done any act which may render the Leaser’s insurance of the Premises against risk of loss or damage attributed to any of the clauses insured against which may increase the rate of premium payable by the Leaser in respect of the Premises with regard to such insurance.
28. The Lessee shall be responsible for insuring his personal property brought onto the Premises. The Leaser shall not be responsible for any loss, theft or damage to the Lessee’s property, regardless of how such loss, theft or damage is caused.
29. The Lessee shall not act, nor permit any act, in relation to the Premises which may be a source of annoyance or nuisance or cause damage or disturbance to the occupants of any neighbouring premises or properties.
30. The Leaser shall, at all reasonable times during the lease Period and with prior arrangement with the Lessee be entitled to have access to and inspect the premises.
31. The Lessee may apply to the Leaser, in writing, for the Lease Period to be renewed, provided such written application is received at least 2 (two) calendar months prior to the Renewal Period. Any renewal of the Agreement will be entirely at the Leaser’s discretion and on the terms to be negotiated between the Lessee and the Leaser which terms should be reduced to writing.
32. The Lessee further agree the leaser to realize any dues to him arising out of this lease from the property of the lessee situated at Kottayam District, Kumaranallor Village, Survey No. 87/2 in Block No. 65, having an extend of 45 cents, which is  in the name of the lessee as per title deed No. 345 of 2003.
33. Should the Leaser have to take legal action against the Lessee to enforce its obligations in terms of this Agreement, the Lessee shall pay all legal costs, including collection commission incurred by the Leaser on an attorney and own client scale..
34. Any notice required or otherwise given pursuant to this Lease shall be in writing; hand delivered, mailed certified return receipt requested, postage prepaid, or delivered by overnight delivery service, if to Tenant, at the Building and if to Landlord, at the address for payment of rent.
35. ii)   The tenancy hereby created shall  be determinable at the option of the either party by giving to the other party two calendar month’s notice in writing, or by giving two months rent in lue of notice.

This document is prepared by [advocate]

Leaser/owner: [Name of Building Owner]

Lessee : [Name of Tenant]

 

Public Nuisance

Section 133 (1) of Criminal Procedure Code

133 (1) Whenever a District Magistrate or a Sub-divisional Magistrate or any other Executive magistrate specially empowered in this behalf by the State Government, on receiving the report of police officer or other information and on taking such evidence (if any) as he thinks fit, considers-
(d) that any building, tent or structure, or any tree is in such a condition that it is likely to fall and thereby cause injury to persons living or carrying on business in the neighborhood or passing by and that in consequence the removal or support of such tree, is necessary.
Such Magistrate may make a conditional order requiring the person owning, possessing or controlling such building, tent, structure, within a time to be fixed in the order to remove, repair or support such building, tent or structure or to remove or support such tree; or, if he object so to do, to appear before himself or some other Executive Magistrate subordinate to him at a time and place to be fixed by the order, and show cause, in the manner hereinafter provided, why the order should not be made absolute.
(2) No order duly made by a Magistrate under this section shall be called in question in any Civil Court.

The provisions operate on different fields under different contingencies. Eviction of tenant is not the object & purpose of S. 133 being public purpose. The resultant eviction, if any, is only one of the results while achieving public purpose. Section 11 operates only where eviction of the tenant is involved. The private interest of a tenant is subject to public interest under S. 133. of Cr. P.C. Provisions of Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act is not a bar to proceeding under the Code of Criminal procedure.
The consideration for passing an order under S. 133 (d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is substantially and fundamentally different from the consideration for passing an order of eviction S.11 (4) iv of the Act.

Landlord Requiring Additional Accommodation.

S. 11 (8)

(8) A landlord who is occupying only a part of a building, may apply to the Rent Control Court for an order directing any tenant occupying the Whole or any portion of the remaining part of the building to put the landlord in possession thereof, if he requires additional accommodation for his personal use.

1. Scope
When the landlord and the tenant are occupying portions of the same building and the landlord requires additional accommodation for his personal use, the rent control law provides a ground for eviction of the tenant who occupies the remaining part of such building, provided that the advantage of the landlord outweigh the hardship that is caused to the tenant.
This section can be invoked only by the landlord (a) who shares his building with a tenant, (b) who requires additional accommodation for his personal use (c) where claim is bonafide and (d) who satisfies the Court that the hardship which might be caused to the tenant by eviction will not outweigh the advantage to the Landlord. If only all these four ingredients are established the landlord can succeed under S.11 (8).

Sub tenant acquired right of ultimate landlord. This does not extinguish the intermediate estate created by original landlord in favour of original tenant. Possession of a portion as sub-tenant will not entitle assignee landlord to seek eviction under 11 (8) Subtenant purchasing right of landlord would be entitled to evict the tenant under Section 11 (8). Protection under S.11(17) cannot be claimed by a tenant who is sought to be evicted under S.11(8).
2. Occupation v. Possession
Legal possession by itself does not constitute occupation. Possession must combine with something more to make it occupation. Mere possession by landlord is not sufficient. There must be occupation by the landlord. The landlord’s requirement should be supplementary to his existing use , i.e. he should use the building in his occupation, mere possession is not enough .

3. Additional accommodation

Additional accommodation sought for must be supplementary to the existing requirement of the landlord. Court cannot impose any restriction with regard to the use of the additional accommodation from which the eviction of the tenant is sought Additional accommodation need not be confined to expansion of an existing trade. “Additional accumulation” and “Personal use” are expressions with wide amplitude. Additional Accommodation can be availed even for a different business which the landlord conducts in part of the building. It need not be for expanding the business conducted by the landlord in part of the building. Additional accommodation under section 11 (8) can be for expansion of existing business or for new Business, to what use the additional accommodation should be put, is the choice of the landlord, provided that the test of bonafide under section 11 (10) shall be satisfied.
If the landlord feels that additional accommodation is necessary and if there are sufficient grounds or justification in support of it and then it is not for the Court to find out whether even without such additional accommodation the landlord could somehow manage to carry on. Even in a case where an additional accommodation is sought as a luxury, the relief should not be denied to the landlord.
In a suit by landlord who is already in occupation of a portion of the building and needs additional accommodation which the tenant is occupying in the building for his personal occupation, once it is held that the landlord requires additional accommodation for his personal use he is entitled to utilize it to best suit his requirement. The condition in which the additional accommodation is to be used by the landlord cannot be dictated by the tenant. The landlord may use it as it exists or he may use it after necessary repairs, additions or alterations to suit his requirements. The tenant has no say in such matters.
The test of bonafides under Section 11 (8) read with Section 11 (10) is not whether the landlord could merely afford to live without the additional accommodation, but whether in seeking the additional accommodation the landlord is pleading an honest purpose and not merely setting up an excuse to obtain eviction.
The sub-section can have application only when landlord is occupying a part of the building and he wants to occupy the portion occupied by the tenant also for his personal use by way of additional accommodation.

4. Personal use
The phrase ‘additional accommodation for personal use of the landlord’ may relate to residential purpose as well as for non-residential purpose. Where it relates to non-residential purpose there is no reason to restrict personal use of the landlord for the purpose of only expansion of the existing business. He can put the additional accommodation, so long as he bonafide need it, to any business or purpose of his choice. All that the section requires is that the landlord must require additional accommodation for his personal use. It is certainly for the landlord to decide what business he will carry on. A Court will not be justified in saying that he requires the building bonafide for his own use only if he requires it for expanding his existing trade.
The tenant cannot dictate the landlord to remain content with a smaller and less convenient premise in preference to the tenanted premises which is more spacious and more advantageous. It is not for the court also to find out whether even without such additional accommodation the landlord could somehow manage to carryon. The need for additional accommodation for personal use is wide enough to include use by the members of the landlord’s family. On the death of the landlord the legal heirs get the right of personal use unless they are discontinuing the business. Landlord dies during the pendency of petition under S.11 (8). Additional accommodation for the personal use of the landlord cannot survive him.
When a landlord requires additional accommodation for the business of the partnership of which he is an active partner, the requirement is for his personal use. Landlord who is in partner of a firm seeking additional accommodation can be taken as personal use and the claim is maintainable.
Once the Rent Control Court orders eviction under S.11 (8) the choice regarding the mode of its further use is entirely that of the Landlord.

5. Part of building
Portions occupied by the Landlord and tenant of the same building used as an integral unit cannot be treated as different buildings in the context of claim under section 11 (8).
It is not necessary that rooms should be adjacent. It need only be form part of the same building though separated by a few rooms. The requirement is only that landlord and tenant should occupy portions of the same building. The term building in S.11 (8) is whether the two portions form part and parcel of one and the same large structure with a common roof. Tenant can be evicted under S.11(8) even if rooms are not adjacent.

6. Section 11(3) and Section 11(8) distinction
Section 11(8) is more or less similar to Section 11(3) in its impact. Due to the presence of first and second proviso to Section 11(10) the interests of the tenant is safeguarded in an eviction under Section 11(8). Further the bonafides of the petition also can be questioned.
Distinction between 11 (3) and 11 (8) are 1. In 11 (8) comparative hardship of the landlord and tenant is to be considered. But in 11 (3) whether the tenant is dependent on the business carried on in the premises for his lively hood and whether there is any suitable building in the locality for the tenant to carry on such trade or business is to be considered. 2. and in the case of 11 (3) the possession of another building in the same city town or village will be a bar for passing an order of eviction. While on the contrary in the case of 11 (8) occupation of part of the building adjacent to the tenanted building is the basis of claiming eviction. Thus it is seen that the requirements of sub section 3 and 8 are entirely different.
To resist eviction under section 11 (8) the tenant has to prove the hardship that cause to him outweigh the advantage of the landlord and the test of bonafide is not so rigorous as in section 11 (3). Question of bona fides is certainly relevant not only in S.11(3) and S.11(8) but also in S.11(7).

Section 11 (3) and 11 (8) are mutually exclusive, entirely different and the requirements are also different. The option available to a landlord under 11 (3) is hedged around by 4 provisos, to prevent its misuse. The conditions for availing eviction under S.11 (8) are that (i) He (Land lord) is occupying a part of the building (ii) tenant is occupying the remaining part (iii) the landlord requires the additional accommodation for his personal use. In the former section the occupation of a room by the landlord is an impediment for eviction which in the latter section occupation on of a room in the same building is the main requirement for an order of eviction. In the former section the petition can be put forward for the bonafide requirement of the dependents but in latter only requirement of the landlord’s personal use is considered. The tenant cannot dictate the condition in which the additional accommodation is to be used by the landlord. The landlord may use it as it exists or he may use it after necessary repairs additions or alternations to suit his requirements. The tenant has no say in such matters.
Sub-section (3) and (8) of Section 11 are not mutually exclusive. If both the grounds are available to the landlord it is open to him to apply for eviction on either of the grounds or on both. The fact that landlord is in possession of a part of the building will not exclude the operation of sub-section (3).
Sub-section (3) and (8) of Section 11 are mutually exclusive. The second proviso to Section 11 (3) prohibit an eviction order under 11(3) if the tenant is depending for his livelihood on the income derived from any trade or business carried on in the building and there is no other suitable building available in the locality for the tenant to carry on his trade. This requirement is absent in Section 11 (8). The first proviso to section 11 (10) states that the Rent Control Court shall reject an application under 11 (8) if it is satisfied that the hardship which may be caused to the tenant will outweigh the advantage to the landlord. The concept of comparative hardship is not available in Section 11 (3). These factors make these two sections mutually exclusive.
The test of bonafide need under Section 11 (3) would be more rigorous than the test under Section 11 (8). If the case of the landlord is that he is residing in a part of building and he requires another part of the building in occupation of the tenant for his occupation so as to have additional accommodation and not to transplant himself from the portion he is residing to the new portion then the case squarely falls within Section 11 (8). If on the other hand a person is occupying a portion of the building, another portion is in the possession of the tenant and he wants that portion as he prefers to occupy that portion of the building and not the portion he had been occupying so far it will be as claim that falls under Section 11 (3).
Where the landlord requires additional accommodation for himself and the family members, it would come under S.11 (8). If the landlord requires another portion in the occupation of his tenant to accommodate other members of his family dependent upon him, it would be governed by S.11 (3) of the Act. However, if both the grounds are available to the landlord, it is open to him to apply for eviction on either of the grounds or both.

S.11 (3) and 11 (8) are not mutually exclusive. It may be that even without the additional accommodation, the landlord may manage. But there are many people who can afford luxuries. There are no reasons to deny that to them so long as the law does not prohibit their enjoyment. The test of bonafides under S.11. (8) read with S.11 (10) is not whether the landlord could merely afford to live without the additional accommodation, but whether in seeking the additional accommodation the landlord is pleading an honest purpose and not merely setting up an excuse to obtain eviction.
The ingredients of section 11 (3) and 11(8) are distinct, different and mutually exclusive. Standards necessary for establishing bonafides in petition under section 11(8) is not so stringent as in petition under section 11(3).

Tenant Ceases to occupy

(S. 11 (4) (v))

if the tenant ceases to occupy the building continuously for six months without reasonable cause.

1. Object:
A tenant is liable to be evicted if he ceases to occupy the tenanted premises without reasonable cause for a continuous period of six months immediately preceding the date of the suit. The question is whether the tenant occupies the building and not whether he has got legal possession. Legal possession is always with the tenant until an eviction order is passed and executed and landlord gets the possession in a lawful manner. Legal possession combined with actual physical use of the building is occupation. The rent law has a duty to avoid scarcity of the building as well as the misuse and non-use of the building. Section 11(10) has no application to a proceeding under this subsection. Physical possession with legal possession coupled with use of the building constitutes occupation.
There is no inherent inconsisitence between ground u/s 11 (4) I and 11 (4) v hence the grounds of cessation of occupation and subletting will be simultaneously available to the landlord.

2. Ceases to occupy:
In order to constitute the ground of ‘ceased to occupy’, it is imperative on the part of the landlord to establish that not only was the business closed, but also that the tenant had withdrawn from the business activity with the intention to stop the business for all times to come. A casual closure of the shop for certain exigencies would not mean that he had ceased or abandoned his tenancy rights with the intention that he no longer interested in occupying the shop. However the author’s opinion is that what is the intention of the tenant is not relevant, whether he had kept the building for the specified period unoccupied is the relevant question.
The landlord who seeks eviction under Section 11 (4) (v) should establish not only that the tenant was not in occupation of building without reasonable cause continuously for six months but also that he was not occupying the building on the date of the petition.
The court must be fully satisfied that there was an intention on the part of the tenant to shift his residence to an alternative place, for passing an order of eviction on the ground of non occupation. The shop remained closed due to arbitration procedure between the tenants they are liable to be evicted as there should have been actual user of shop by them. Occupation by servants cannot be construed as occupation by master. The occupation by the tenant is the occupation by the tenant himself and not by anyone else and leaving some belongings of the son of the tenant in the leasehold premises would not amount to occupation to defeat the eviction sought for under S.11(4)(v).

Occupation in the context of S.11(4) (v) means only physical occupation. Cessation for the purpose of S.11(4) (v) must continue up to the date of filing of Rent Control petition. If it is seen that no business is being carried on in the premises and that the premises are remaining closed there will be justification to presume that there has been cessation of occupation.
Tenant shifted to a foreign country leaving his mother and brother in the house who were regularly paying rent to the landlord. Eviction cannot be ordered on the ground that tenant ceased to occupy the building. The term “family” has to be given a liberal and broad construction so as to include near relations of the tenant.

4. Possession and Occupation
Legal possession by itself does not constitute occupation. Possession must combine with something more to make it occupation. It cannot be inferred that the tenant was doing business merely because there was a telephone in the room and the room remained opened when the commissioner visited. Once landlord could establish that Tenant has ceased to occupy the building continuously for six months prior to filing the petition he is entitled to get an order of eviction. Landlord need not establish that Tenant had abandoned the building. The word occupy used by the statute would show that the premise be put to use. Mere presence or intermittent opening of the tenanted premise will not suffice occupation. The tenant should actually use the building. Occupation in the context of S.11 (4) means physical occupation when it pertains to a residential building it means occupation through residence and when it pertains to commercial building it means occupation by conduct of business.
If a building let out for residential or non-residential purpose always remains closed the inference is that it is not used or occupied. The Fact that some of the belongings of the tenant are kept in the building by itself is not sufficient to show that the building is being used. The tenant was not carrying on any business in the premises and had removed all the stock in trade furniture and fittings and had kept only almirah. He was held to have ceased to occupy the premises.
Once landlord could establish that tenant has ceased to occupy the premises continuously for six months prior to the filing of the petition he is entitled to get an order of eviction under this section. The word occupy used in the statute would show that the tenant cannot be heard to contend that he is having physical possession of the premises though not in occupation. It is not necessary that the tenant should abandon the building so as to attract S.11 (4) v. The word ‘occupy’ used by the statute would show that tenanted premises be put to use.
Occupation includes possession as a primary ingredient, for there can be no occupation without possession. But possession must combine with something more to make it occupation. Legal possession does not by itself constitute occupation Under S.11 (4) (v) of the Act it is doubtless that the word occupation is used to denote the tenant’s actual physical use of the building either by himself or thorough his agents or employees. Hence, the tenant cannot upset the presumption of non-occupation by merely pointing out features of his legal possession of the premises. Occupation means physical occupation when it pertains to a residential building occupation means occupation through residence and when it pertains to a commercial building it is occupation by conduct of business.
Legal possession of the building by the tenant will, by itself, be not sufficient for refusing an order of eviction unless the tenant proves that there was reasonable cause for his having ceased to occupy the building.

5. Reasonable cause:
What is reasonable ground is depended on the facts and circumstances of each case. Inter-se dispute between the legal heirs of the original tenant is not a reasonable cause for non user of the tenanted premises continuously for six months. Transfer of a government servant is not a reasonable cause for not using the premises. No rigid formula can be evolved for proof of reasonable cause; it has to be evaluated depending on the facts and circumstances of each case.
The omission of the words without reasonable cause in the petition will not disentitle the landlord to get eviction on the ground of tenant ceases to occupy the building for more the six months without reasonable cause. Even if the pleading are lacking or vague if both parties understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to the requirement of law and placed necessary materials before the Court neither party is prejudiced.
In a case where there is stout denial of the allegations regarding cessation, the tenant is not justified in banking upon any “reasonable cause” which was neither pleaded nor proved to contend that the cessation was justifiable.

6. Subsequent Events
Even if landlord has sold away building, such sale cannot be a subsequent event having a fundamental impact on the landlord’s right to evict the tenant under S.11(4)(v). Contention of the tenant that the building was sold during the pendency of eviction petition which is a subsequent event and should lead to dissolution of the order of eviction under 11(4)v. landlord’s entitlement to get an order of eviction under 11(4)v depends not directly on the merits of his claim but on the entailment of the liability for eviction by the tenant due to any action or inaction on the tenant’s part. Even if landlord has sold away building, such sale cannot be a subsequent event having a fundamental impact on the landlord’s right to evict the tenant under S.11(4)(v)/

7. How to prove:
Return of registered notices repeatedly with endorsements like “door closed”, the tenant’s absence in the premises, presence of old posters on the face of the door, heap of settled dust, clusters of spider webs, which raises a feeling of being closed for a long period. The unit of electricity used during the relevant period. All these aspects can be brought in evidence by way of taking out commission for local inspection.
Admissions made by the tenant are a best piece of evidence. Evidence by the neighbors and adjacent shop proprietors, records from the Municipal Authorities to show about the non-payment of professional tax and lack of license for the relevant period are relevant. The absence of records to be kept under the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act and Rules and under the provisions of Minimum Wages Act and disconnected electricity – water supply connections etc. would probabalise the case of the landlord. The discontinuation of the filling up of the entries in the account books and the failed state of getting the monthly statements certified by the Sales Tax Authorities, according to VAT, if VAT is applicable to the tenant’s business.

Mere fact that electricity was disconnected would not mean that the tenant was not conducting business in the tenanted premises. The electricity meter reading is important evidence because prima facei non-consumption shown by the meter reader can lead to a presumption that no electricity has been consumed unless proved otherwise. The landlord proved the cessation of occupation by showing (1) there was no electricity consumption for six months (2) Employees of Electricity Board found the premises locked during periodical visits (3) No sale or purchase of goods took place during the relevant period on the premises. (4) No account book was produced. Non consumption of electricity and report of the commissioner that the premise was not used for three years, it was held that the tenant was liable to be evicted.
in a case filed under S.11(4)(v), the best mode of proof of cessation of occupation is to conduct surprise inspection of the petition schedule building by the Commissioner. Landlord has to bring in prima facie evidence in support of the allegations in the form of a report by a Commissioner on the basis of at least a surprise local inspection.

Reconstruction

(S 11 (4) (iv))

if the building is in such a condition that it needs reconstruction and if the landlord requires bona fide to reconstruct the same and if he satisfies the Court that he has the plan and license, if any required, and the ability to rebuild and if the proposal is not made as a pretext for eviction:

Provided that the landlord who evicts a tenant and does not reconstruct completely the building within a time which may be fixed or extended by the Rent Control Court, shall on a petition before that Court be liable to a fine of rupees five hundred, if it is proved that he has willfully neglected to reconstruct completely the building within such time:

Provided further that the Court shall have power at any time to issue directions regarding the reconstruction of the building and on failure of compliance by the landlord, to give effect to the order in any manner the Court deems fit and in appropriate cases to put the tenant back in possession or award to the evicted tenant damages equal to the excess rent he has to pay for another building that he is occupying in consequence of such eviction:

Provided further that the tenant who was evicted shall have the first option to have the reconstructed building allotted to him with liability to pay its fair rent: or

1. Object
The legislature wants developments in the building sector and further, the dilapidated conditions of buildings would be a danger to the occupants of the building as well as to the public. The legislature takes care of the rights of the tenants of a building who were sought to be evicted for reconstruction. So the pre-requisites and condition subsequent were properly detailed in first and second proviso respectively, to the Section 11(4) (iv).
Building needs reconstruction is a ground for temporary eviction of the tenant, to allow the landlord to reconstruct the building. The tenancy is not terminated by an order under this section. The tenant will be given priority or first option to have the reconstructed building allotted to him. To safeguard the interest of the tenant there are three provisos for this sub clause. First proviso imposes a penalty of Rs. 500/- to the landlord who willfully neglected to reconstruct the building within the time fixed or extended by the Rent Control Court. The second proviso empowers the Rent Control Court with powers to issue directions regarding reconstruction and, to award the evicted tenant damages equal to the excess rent he has to pay for another building that he is occupying in consequence of such eviction and to put the tenant back in possession in appropriate cases. In this Act there is no embargo against a landlord demolishing residential building and constructing a non residential one in its place.
Where the landlord wanted to use the building as passage for a proposed multi-story building, the need comes under bonafide need and not under reconstruction and hence the tenant is not entitled to claim right of re-entry. Building to be demolished to provide exit for the proposed building, the respondents have no need to occupy the entire reconstructed building. order of eviction only under Section 11(4)(iv) and not under Section 11(3).
Case of the tenant that the landlord could have utilised other vacant land owned by him to make the proposed construction. It is fairly well settled that it is not for the tenant to dictate as to how the landlord should satisfy his need. The landlord is the best Judge of his need and it is for him to decide how best to satisfy his need. It is not open to the tenant to contend that the landlord should satisfy his need by utilising the vacant land available behind the tenanted premises. Tenant cannot dictate to the landlord as to the site or the type of the new building which the landlord has in mind.

2. Condition for eviction under subsection (4)iv of Section 11

Before the landlord can obtain an order for eviction on the ground of reconstruction he must satisfy the Rent Control Court about the genuineness of his claim and this can only be established by looking at all the surrounding circumstances, such as the condition of the building, its situation, the possibility of its being put to more profitable use after construction, the means of the landlord and so on.

To constitute this ground for eviction the landlord has to prove six conditions. They are :

1. Building is in such a condition that it needs reconstruction.
2. The landlord requires bonafide to reconstruct the building.
3. The landlord must prepare a plan and obtain a license from the local authority.
4. The landlord has the ability to rebuild.
5. The proposal of reconstruction is not made as a pretext for eviction.
6. Material advantage to which the building can be put to after reconstruction.
It is not merely the physical condition of the building that is the criterion to determine the question of need for reconstruction. Many other considerations must necessarily enter into the determination of the question whether the building is in such a condition as needing reconstruction. The age of the building, its adoptability for current use, the economic viability of keeping the building in the same condition are all matters which may have to be taken into account. The locality in which the building is situate might have become much more important since its construction years earlier and the construction of a new building utilizing the ground space to the maximum benefit of the owner may bring in much more advantageous return to him. That may be ground for seeking eviction for the purpose of reconstruction. But the court has the duty to see that such a plea is honest and not made as a pretext for eviction.

Mere dilapidated condition of the building does not justify need for reconstruction. The importance of the locality in which the building is situated may be a ground for reconstruction. The physical condition of the building alone is not the criterion. The “Condition of the building” is a larger concept which includes considerations of social surroundings and allied factors.

3. Building needs Reconstruction
The factors like situation of the building, the possibility of its being put to more profitable use after reconstruction are also relevant considerations. The High Court has found that the building was 80 years old when the proceedings for eviction were commenced. Almost 20 years have been lost in these proceedings and now the building is about a 100 years old. The appellants are paying a monthly rent of a little over Rs 200/- per month. Madurai is a fast developing and progressing city. There is nothing wrong if the landlord proposes to demolish such an old building and instead construct a modern and spacious marriage hall so as to make better use of the property and augment his earnings.
In an application under Section 11 (4) (iv) what is fundamental is the physical condition of the building. To allow a building to be pulled down where it could, with repair or renovation, continue to accommodate the tenant for a decade or more, simply because the landlord has the capacity and the desire to build, will be to forget the true scope of the enactment and even the realities of the situation.
To inspect the building and note the condition an engineer was appointed as a commissioner, who reported that the building was about 80 years old and there were cracks in the floor and rear walls. Some of the portions were damaged by white ants. This shows that the building is very old and was in a dilapidated condition.
4. Intention of the Landlord
If there is intention, and if there is no suspicion about the requirement, the landlord will be entitled to an order of eviction. The motive is not the criteria or a relevant factor to be taken into consideration.
Factors such as location of the building, age and physical condition of the building, the nature of development of the area where the building is situated, financial ability and necessary plan and license, the possibility of its being put to more profitable use after reconstruction are to be taken into consideration.
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.
5. Better Returns
IF the landlord feels that the existing structure is not getting proper returns, taking into consideration the fact that the development in the locality has really affected his chance of getting a good income and if by better investment, he can get better return, that decision of the landlord cannot be said as without bonafides.

6. Dilapidated condition

The limited concept of the dilapidated condition of the building as justifying the desire for reconstruction is not justified by the provision in section 11 (4) (iv) of the Act. Whether the landlords requirement is reasonable and bonafide has to be judged by the surrounding circumstances. The landlord need not establish that the condition of the building is such that it requires immediate demolition. The condition of the building need not be dangerous or even dilapidated nor need to be very old for granting an order under S.11 (4) iv. The Rent Control Court has to take into account the bonafide intention of the landlord, the age and condition of the building, and the financial position of the landlord.
Where only minor repairs are required to the building eviction under reconstruction need not be allowed. If the substantial part of a big building has become unsafe for human habitation the tenant of a portion of the building can be evicted even if that particular portion is in good condition. An eviction order under Section 11 (4) (iv) has to be upheld if it is passed taking into consideration the physical condition of the building, the developments that has been taking place in the locality and the material advantage to which the building can be put to after reconstruction.
Need for reconstruction is not confined to a situation where the building is in a dilapidated condition.
If the court finds that the building concerned is in a good physical condition and it cannot be said to be out of time with other buildings in the locality, the court is right in dismissing an application for reconstruction.
There is no hard and fast formula to decide whether a building is in a dilapidated state. This depends on the total facts and circumstances of the case, including the locality and the parties. What may be dilapidated for a high income group in a posh locality may be the usual condition in poor area.
The building has not been collapsed during the long period of litigation on the ground that the building had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation is not a ground to deny eviction because the landlord does not have to wait till premises actually fall down.
The building was ‘B’ class and was 60 years old and ‘B’ class buildings could not survive beyond 50 to 60 years. A tenant could not be permitted to defeat the right of the landlord by effecting the repairs of the dilapidated portion.

7. Plan and license
The Act 2 of 1965 take a precaution that if plan and license is required for construction of the building, the landlord should satisfy the court that he has availed necessary plan and license.
Eviction sought for reconstruction of a residential building as a non-residential building. The plan and license need not be produced along with the petition. Revisional authority cannot direct to submit a fresh plan. The provision of the Section requires only a plan and license. If the license is not approved, the building cannot be constructed. Before execution is taken out, the petitioner must produce the approval from Greater Cochin Development Authority. The absence or non-production of the order of sanction from Greater Cochin Development Authority will not be a bar to order eviction under S.11 (4) (iv) of the Act.

Court cannot reject a petition on the ground that the period of licence expired during the pendency of the proceedings. In such a case the court may incorporate a direction in the order of eviction that actual delivery of possession will be given only when the landlord satisfiers the execution coast that the licence has been renewed by the Local authorities. The petition cannot be rejected on the ground that the period of license granted by the Municipality expired during the pendency of the proceedings. To safeguard and protect the interest of the tenant, the court may incorporate a direction in the order of eviction that actual delivery will be given only when the landlord satisfies the Execution Court that the license has been renewed or a new license has been granted by the local authority concerned. When the Rent Control Court is satisfied that the landlord has a plan and license to reconstruct the building, the petition is not to be dismissed on finding that the period of license expired during the pendency of the proceedings. In a case where license is not required for reconstruction neither Plan nor license is to be produced before court for establishing the bonafides of the landlord before the Rent Control Court.
In an Eviction petition on the ground of reconstruction, it is not incumbent upon the landlord to produce the plan along with the petition.
The decree as passed by the High Court is sustained but it is directed that the landlords shall submit the plan of reconstruction of the building for the approval of the local authority. Only on the plans being sanctioned by the local authority, the decree for eviction shall be available for execution. Such sanctioned or approved plans shall be produced before the executing court whereupon the executing court shall allow a reasonable time to the tenant for vacating the property and delivering possession to the landlord-decree holders.
When the landlord possesses sufficient funds and has satisfied other conditions, it is not incumbent upon the landlord to produce the sanctioned plan and permission granted by the municipality for construction of building.

8. Ability to rebuild.
This condition is another precaution took by the legislature to safeguard the interest of tenant as well as the society. It is patent that a person does not have ability to rebuild, will not reconstruct the building. In order to decide the capacity to rebuild, the Court can take into consideration of the estimated expenses for the proposed construction relying on the plan produced by the landlord. On the basis of that estimation the landlord has to prove his capacity.
Ability to reconstruct the building is a matter to be inferred from totality of evidence adduced and what has to be satisfied is the capacity to raise funds for reconstruction. For this regard the following facts will have a bearing namely the status of the person, his position in the society, his financial back ground etc. It is not necessary to go into minute details.

“Ability” means “sufficient power, capacity (to do), cleverness or talent”. So, even if the landlord is not possessed at present of the entire amount required for the construction, it is enough if he satisfies the court that he has got the power, capacity and the talent to raise funds and carry on the construction.
Sufficient means is not the sole criterion for determining the claim of the landlord as reasonable and bonafide to demolish and reconstruct. His application need not necessarily fail if he has not adduced evidence in regard to his possessing of sufficient means, as it is only one of the circumstances to be taken into consideration.
It is not a requirement of law that the landlord should jingle the coins before the court. It is not necessary that the landlord should produce the money before the court to show that he has means to rebuild. Facilities offered by financial institution can also be availed of or assistance can be sought from other persons.
9. The Proposal of reconstruction is not made as a pretext for eviction
Before ordering eviction under the ground of reconstruction the rent control court has to satisfy that the proposal of reconstruction is not made as a pretext for eviction. Proposal is not made for a pretext for eviction is an inference to be drawn based on the totality of the facts established in the case and cannot be said to be an element or fact separately to be proved as it is incapable of adducing any direct evidence to show that it is not a pretext for eviction. Availability of a suitable site with landlord in the vicinity of the tenanted building is totally irrelevant.

10. Condition subsequent to eviction (first proviso)
Provided that the landlord who evicts a tenant and does not reconstruct completely the building within a time which may be fixed or extended by the Rent Control Court, shall on a petition before that Court be liable to a fine of rupees five hundred, if it is proved that he has willfully neglected to reconstruct completely the building within such time:
When eviction is ordered on the ground of bonafide own use and reconstruction, a direction to provide one room to the tenant in the reconstructed building is not legal. Further the court when orders eviction under this section time has to be fixed for reconstruction of the building. When no time is fixed in the order it should be presumed that it should be reconstructed within a reasonable time. While ordering eviction under Section 11(4) (iv) the Rent Control Court can fix a time limit within which the building is to be constructed and direct that in the reconstructed building the tenants will have to be provided accommodation. The right of option to the tenants secured to him the right to come back to the building after reconstruction. In the reconstructed building the tenant must get more or less the same advantage as he had earlier.

11. Rights available to the tenant after eviction (second and third proviso)

Provided further that the Court shall have power at any time to issue directions regarding the reconstruction of the building and on failure of compliance by the landlord, to give effect to the order in any manner the Court deems fit and in appropriate cases to put the tenant back in possession or award to the evicted tenant damages equal to the excess rent he has to pay for another building that he is occupying in consequence of such eviction:

Provided further that the tenant who was evicted shall have the first option to have the reconstructed building allotted to him with liability to pay its fair rent: or

The question whether the building is suitable for tenant to reoccupy for continuing his business is a material question. The tenant need not be allotted identical space or shape, but he must get more or less same advantage as before. The 3rd proviso to S. 11 (4) iv should not be constructed to make it inoperative. When a building occupied by several tenants is reconstructed, it cannot be said that each tenant has an option to get in the reconstructed building the same portion which he was occupying in the old building. There is no provision in the Act which says that a particular tenant has got the right of first option in precedence to the other tenants. In appropriate case the Court can even allow the tenant to reconstruct the building at his cost, if the landlord declines to reconstruct the building after demolition. In a case where the landlord persists in his unreasonable refusal to reconstruct or to complete the construction within the time specified, the Court can permit the tenant to carry out the construction. If the existing building remains without being pulled down, the court can direct the landlord to put the tenant back in possession. If the landlord fails to start reconstruction after obtaining possession, the court can permit the tenant to construct the building in accordance with the plan. The tenant in such a case must be allowed to adjust the cost incurred by him in the rent which accrues later. The Court has power to permit the evicted tenant to carry out reconstruction if the landlord neglects to reconstruct but this power is to be used only in exceptional cases where the court is completely satisfied that there has been willful neglect on the part of the landlord and the failure to reconstruct is attributable almost solely to such neglect.
The wide powers envisaged in the proviso to Section 11 (4) (iv) include the powers even to permit the affected tenant, in appropriate cases, to carry out the reconstruction if the landlord persists in his unreasonable refusal to complete reconstruction.
Substantially the same area of accommodation must be made available to the tenant in the reconstructed building. The landlord cannot insist upon fanciful rentals. The tenant need pay only the fair rent as may be fixed by the rent control court.

12. The third proviso

“Provided further that the tenant who was evicted shall have the first option to have the reconstructed building allotted to him with liability to pay its fair rent: or”

In order to protect the interest of such evicted tenants the statute inserted the third proviso, which gives the right of first option to the tenant to occupy the reconstructed building. Imposition of fine on the landlord depends upon proof that the landlord has willfully neglected to reconstruction need not depend upon any such proof of willful neglect. The powers include even the power to allow the affected tenant to reconstruct the building at his cost, if the landlord declines to reconstruct the building after pulling it down.
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. A close look at section 11 (4) (iv) would show that the provisos are not to be read in isolation and the right to seek eviction for the purpose of reconstruction has to be read in the light of the content of the provisos. The provisions in the other two provisos furnish the background to the right of option under the third proviso.

13. Single Petition Maintainable
A single petition for eviction of tenants who are in possession of various rooms for reconstruction is possible. What is important is that the tenants shall be given an opportunity to resist the claim and they should raise objection at the 1st instance & not at the appellate stage. Joint trial can be allowed in petition for eviction of several tenants occupying rooms of the same building. If joint application is not allowed, it may lead to injustice, in multiplication of evidence, chance of conflicting findings, delay in disposal of matters and reallocation of reconstructed building of the tenant. The landlord can file a single petition under section 11(4) iv against various tenants who are in occupation of distinct portion of the same structure in the event of which there is no misjoinder of cause of action or misjoinder of parties and the petition is not hit by multifariousness. But Landlord cannot unite different causes of action in a single petition filed against various tenants whether they are in occupation of the same building or different buildings.
Single petition for eviction is maintainable even when there are two landlords and two buildings but the tenant is the same. The Rent control court has inherent power to direct joint trial of cases, if the joint trial will sub serve the interest of the parties and is necessary in the interest of justice. It is permissible to unite several causes of action against different tenants in an action under S.11(4)(iv) of the Act or against a single tenant occupying the full shop room.
Landlord and his brother come to have absolute ownership over definite portion of the building which was occupied by a single tenancy. The petition filed under section 11 (3) and 11 (4) iv, it is sufficient that eviction under section 11 (3) be passed.
The non examination of any one of the landlords to testify regarding the bonafides under section 11 (4) iv to reconstruct the building is not fatal. The bonafide need for own occupation under section 11 (3) is best established by evidence given by the needy person, whereas bonafides under section 11 (4) iv is capable of establishing by tangible items of evidence. Non examination of landlord in a petition under section 11 (4) iv is not fatal. Bonafide under section 11 (4) iv is a matter to be inferred in an objective manner on an assessment of materials produced before the court.
Two landlords can file a joint petition for eviction of tenants in their respective buildings. There is no misjoinder of parties. The Rent Control Court has got power to consolidate. A suit is not barred within the meaning of O.7 R.11(d) even if it is bad for misjoinder of parties or cause of action. Procedure is a handmaid of justice. Here the building (the whole structure) is to be demolished and reconstructed by the petitioners who own the respective portions of the same structure. Even a suit defective for misjoinder of parties or cause of action is not barred by law.

14. The limitation for applying for re-allotment.

The section does not provide any particular time limit for applying for re-allotment after reconstruction. The plain reading of the provision would show that the landlord is bound to inform the tenant about the completion of reconstruction as the wording ‘first option’. If the landlord fails to do so tenant should approach the landlord within reasonable time. Such reasonable time should be counted from the knowledge of completion of reconstruction availed of to the tenant. If the landlord refuses to re-allot the tenant can approach the Rent Controller by way of filing an IA in the same OP in which the order of eviction was passed, for exercising his first option.
15. Penal Provisions
The penal provision for not reconstructing after demolition of the building as per an order of Rent Control Court on the ground of reconstruction is provided in the proviso to this sub-section itself.
Provided that the landlord who evicts a tenant and does not reconstruct completely the building within a time which may be fixed or extended by the Rent Control Court, shall on a petition before that Court be liable to a fine of rupees five hundred, if it is proved that he has willfully neglected to reconstruct completely the building within such time:
The power to award damages to a tenant who was compelled to take another building on lease, pending completing of reconstruction will have application only where reconstruction is made very late.

Tenant Acquiring Building

(S 11 (4) (iii) if the tenant already has in his possession a building or subsequently acquires possession of or puts up a building, reasonably sufficient for his requirements in the same city, town or village;

1. Object

If the Tenant has in his possession a building reasonably sufficient for his requirements in the same city, town or village or if the tenant subsequently acquires possession of a building reasonably sufficient for his requirement or if he puts up a building reasonably sufficient for his requirement in the same city, town or village the landlord can apply to the Rent Control Court for an order of eviction of the tenant.
A tenant who is liable to be evicted under S.11(4)(iii) is landlord like, as he enjoys, possession of more buildings than necessary for his requirements.

2. Has or acquires possession
Acquisition of plots ideal for construction of building or where construction of storied buildings where started will not constitute ground under S.11(4) iii.
In an application for eviction on the ground that at the time of letting itself the tenant had in his possession a building reasonably sufficient for his requirement, the sufficiency of that building has to be considered with reference to the nature and size of the tenant’s business at the time of letting and not at the time of application. But the position may be different in the case of a subsequent acquisition by tenant.
Landlord pleading that tenant has acquired another building and he is conducting the business which he was conducting in the petition schedule building. Pleadings raised by landlord sufficient to constitute eviction.
Unless it is shown that one of the co-owners is put in possession exclusively by any arrangement between co-owners, it cannot be said that one of the co-owners is in exclusive possession within the meaning of S. 11 (4) iii. Acquisition of plot for construction of building will not constitute a ground under S.11(4) iii. Even commencement of construction is not sufficient. Acquisition of a building by partnership in which the tenant is a partner will not be a ground for eviction under section 11 (4) iii.

3. Building acquired by one of the legal Representatives
Building acquired by one of the Legal Representatives can be a ground for eviction, if the building is acquired in relation to the occupation of the tenanted premises. On the other hand, if one of the Legal Representatives acquired building for their own benefit with their own funds, the court could deny relief under section 11(4) iii. The burden of proof would be on the tenants to establish that the buildings acquired by one or some of the Legal Representatives alone and that they have no connection or right in the business being conducted in the tenanted premises or that they do not occupy the tenanted premises.
Acquisition of buildings by one of the co – tenants, cannot entail eviction of common tenancy.
4. Reasonably sufficient for his requirement
If the premises from which eviction is sought is used not only for residence but also for profession with the consent of landlord, tenancy cannot be terminated on the ground that the tenant has acquired a building suitable for residence, but not suitable for his profession.
If the tenant acquired a building or is in possession of another building suitable for his business he is liable to be evicted. The tenant had leased out his newly put up building is not a defense against landlords claim under S.11(4)iii because he is not in possession of the newly put up building. Merely because the building the tenant has got is having lesser area than the petition schedule building, petition under Section 11 (4) iii cannot be rejected. If it is shown that the tenant has got another building, burden shifts on him to prove that he building is not sufficient for his purpose.
The expression “reasonably sufficient for his requirement” is of relative amplitude and its application differs from case to case. The word “reasonable” is not capable of precise definition. ‘Reasonable’ signifies “in accordance with reasons” and in the ultimate analysis it is a question of fact. Sufficiency of one’s requirement cannot be tested merely on the assertion of the tenant that such and such are his requirements. No straightjacket formula can be evolved for the purpose, nor could a yardstick be provided to measure reasonable sufficiency of one’s requirements. Newly acquired building by tenant if reasonably sufficient for his requirement would attract S.11(4)iii.

5. In the same city town or village
The building acquired by the tenant must be in the same city town or village. The building need not be in the same locality, locality being in the near vicinity. Unlike suitable building available in the locality under section 11 (3) second proviso here building reasonably sufficient for the requirement in the same city town or village is sufficient. Suitable building available in the locality and tenant acquired building reasonably sufficient for his requirements are deferent.

6. Tenant transferring the building during the pendency of the proceedings
During the pendency of an application for eviction tenant gave up possession of a building which is reasonably sufficient for his (tenant’s) requirement in the same town. Landlord’s claim for eviction under Section 11-(4) iii cannot be defeated by this subsequent conduct of the tenant and cannot claim protection of the second proviso of Section 11 (3).
Subsequent event can be taken into consideration but where such fact is created by act of one party by which he cannot defeat a right of the other party. If the building subsequently acquired by the tenant was in existence as on the date of eviction petition, he is liable to be evicted. A party by his own act cannot defeat a right already accrued in favour of the party who seeks eviction by disposing off the building acquired by him he cannot defeat the landlord who seek eviction under section 11(4) iii.
If the tenants transfer the building that was in their possession and ownership six months prior to the disposal of the application, the same cannot negative the ground under Section 11 (4) (iii) of the Act. the subsequent event that can be taken note of normally cannot be an event or an action engineered by the tenants themselves and which has got an impact on the ground alleged in the application.
Building owned by the tenant sold during the pendency of petition, the tenant cannot by his own act defeat the right already accrued on the landlord.
Eviction ordered on the ground that tenant owned another building. Tenant’s building acquired after order of eviction. Event of acquisition of buildings by the Government 21 years after the tenant had entailed liability to be evicted under S.11(4)(iii) will not result in eclipsing the valuable right accrued in favour of the landlord for evicting the tenant on that ground.

Reducing value or utility of the building

11 (4) (ii) if the tenant uses the building in such a manner as to destroy or reduce its value or utility materially and permanently; or

1. Object
The legislature is very conscious about the protection of valuable rights of the landlord to keep his leased out premises intact. The principal behind the sub section is that no limited estate holder is entitled to commit any waste in the premises. The principles of equity deal with what is waste and what is not a waste. In order to satisfy the ingredients of waste; the act done by the person with limited estate should either (1) diminish the value of the property or (2) increase the burden on the property or (3) impair the evidence of title. But ameliorating wastes does not include the acts mentioned in the above subsection. But the subsection does not prevent the tenant from changing the building in such a manner enabling him to use the building for his business unless such change does not involve material alternation of permanent character (A detailed discussion of these aspects has been made under Section 17 of this Act). But the Act does not define the word ‘material alteration’.

2. Destroy or reduce value or utility

In order to attract the conditions of this provision the act of the tenant must either destroy the value or utility of the building, materially and permanently, or reduce the value or utility of the building materially and permanently. The intention of the legislature is very clear, and the tenant need not be given a chance for curing his faults. Or else the section would contain provision for giving notice as provided in Section 11 (2) and 11 (4) (i) of this Act. Value means worth and utility means the condition of being useful or profitable. So any act done by a tenant which affects the usefulness or profitability of a building, adversely, would attract this ground. While deciding whether there is any reduction in the utility, the court has to look into the nature, age, and condition of the building at the time of lease and at the time of petition. Further it has to be ascertained that whether the reduction or destruction is the result of act of tenant. The awareness of the landlord at the time of letting out, about the nature of business and consequences thereof, does not absolve the tenant from use the building in such a manner destroying or reducing the utility of the building. Again this section does not enable the tenant to do acts, which increase the value or utility of the building, if such acts will affect the title of the landlord. The words destroy or reduce is connected to both value and utility with same force and includes the value for clarity of the title of the landlord also.
The act of the tenant amounting either to reduce or destroy either value or utility will attract this provision. The value or utility is disjunctive reduction or destruction of either of it will constitute a ground for eviction if such reduction or destruction is material and permanent. Material and permanent are used in conjunctive manner hence reduction or destruction must be material and permanent, both the character is to be present, for such reduction or destruction in order to constitute the ground.
Two rooms made into one by demolishing a wall, without the consent of landlord. The tenant has no right to demolish the wall and to say that thereby the value and utility are increased. Landlord had designed and built the rooms by spending money and materials to suit his need and utility. Besides, by demolishing the wall in between the rooms, the structural strength of the building is reduced. The landlord is entitled to order of eviction.

The sheds which were recently constructed were of a permanent nature, which could not be dismantled without substantial damage to the structure and, in any event, by making the construction of the sheds in question the petitioner had committed acts likely to impair materially the value and utility of the premises and the land leased out to him.

3. Materially and permanently
The court has to look whether the act of the tenant has resulted in destruction or reduction of value or utility of the building. If the answer is positive then the court has to look into whether such destruction or reduction is material to the building and even if it is material the court has to verify whether such material reduction of value or utility is of permanent nature, if all the test is positive the court has to order eviction under this ground.
Tenant demolishing boundary wall of the property demised and put up corridor to connect his shop building with the godown in adjoining property of another landlord. Due to this the boundary line has been completely obliterated leading to complications, tenant is liable to be evicted. The tenant remodeling the building by changing shutters, doors and flooring amounts to waste.
A user of the lease property as a person of ordinary prudence is a right of the tenant. The action of the tenant replacing wooden split shutters with rolling shutters for safety cannot be said to be material alteration. Tenant constructed a wooden balcony in the showroom. The court held that it did not amount to material alternation.
The destruction or damage has to be adjudicated from the standpoint of the landlord. The word material and permanent are not disjunctive.
Destruction of compound wall and removal of gate affect the security and identity of the property. Demolition of wall in front of the building obstructing the view will not fall within the mischief of S. 11 (4) ii. But the landlord can sue for damages. Landlord cannot get an order of eviction on mere proof of minor destruction or alteration even if it results in marginal reduction of value or utility. Minor alterations that has not resulted in diminishing the value and utility of the building materially and permanently, even if made, is no ground for eviction. The wooden planks on the front door of the building were replaced by rolling shutters. The alteration did not cause any damage or deterioration to the building.
As observed in Shanmugan v. Rao Saheb 1988 (1) KLT 86, Landlord cannot get an order of eviction on the ground of material & permanent reduction of value or utility merely on the proof of minor destruction or alterations, even if it resulted in reduction of value or utility.
The fact that the tenant did not care to protect the furniture in the building does not enable the landlord to complain the building has been used in such a manner as to destroy or reduce its value or utility permanently and substantially. Tenant repaired existing bathrooms and cement plastering was made. It will not amount to any material alteration resulting in reducing in value and utility of the building. And landlord is not entitled for eviction. Minor alterations which will not diminish the value of the building and which is not a permanent character, cannot be said to be alterations which would affect the worth or utility of the building.
The destruction or reduction of utility or value of the building must be of a reasonably substantial magnitude. Since the expressions “materially and permanently” are used conjunctively, the Legislature has indicated that even material alterations of a temporary nature would not help the landlord in getting an order of eviction.

4. Facts to be considered
User of land well and structures appurtenant to the main building in such a manner as to reduce its value and utility materially and permanently attracts S. 11 (4) ii. Additional construction on land appurtenant to the building reduces the value and utility of the building materially and permanently.
The impairment of the value or utility of the building is to be considered in the point of view of the landlord. If there is a stipulation in the lease deed that the tenant shall not make any additional construction or alteration to the tenanted building, it is binding on the tenant.

The tenant reconstructed the building by replacing tiled roof by asbestos and shutters were placed instead of doors, older walls were replaced by new walls in such a way as to enhance its utility but against the consent and will of the landlord. The ingredients of section 11 (4)ii are satisfied and hence the tenants are liable to be evicted.

5. Defenses
The tenant can take the defense that the building does not belong to the petitioner and thus deny the title of the landlord. The landlord has to go to the Civil Court and there too the tenant gets all the protection of the Rent Control Act. The landlord has to prove the ground under this act in the civil court also, the tenant is not deprived any of his right by denying the title of the landlord.
The petition on the ground of reducing value or utility of the building materially and permanently can be defended that the work done does not reduce value materially and permanently. Reduction of value should be material as well as permanent. Both the limbs, material and permanent nature, must be present in order to constitute the ground. Likewise the reduction of utility should be material as well as permanent. Both the limbs, material and permanent nature, must be present in order to constitute the ground. And further plead that the work done has only enhanced the value or utility.
The conduct of tenant in the proceedings cannot be taken against him when deciding the case on merit. Any of the ground under this Act is to be proved to evict the tenant. Order must be in terms of the provisions of the Act.

Arrears of Rent S. 11 (2)

11 (2) (a) A landlord who seeks to evict his tenant shall apply to the Rent Control Court for a direction in that behalf.
(b) If the Rent Control Court, after giving the tenant a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the application, is satisfied that the tenant has not paid or tendered the rent due by him in respect of the building within fifteen days after the expiry of the time fixed in the agreement of tenancy with his landlord or in the absence of any such agreement by the last day of the month next following that for which the rent is payable, it shall make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building, and if it is not satisfied it shall make an order rejecting the application thereof by him:
Provided that an application under this subsection shall be made only if the landlord has sent a registered notice to the tenant intimating the default and the tenant has failed to pay or tender the rent together with interest at six percent per anum and postal charges incurred in sending the notice within fifteen days of the receipt of the notice or of the refusal thereof.
(c) The order of the Rent Control Court directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building shall not be executed before the expiry of one month from the date of such order or such further period as the Rent Control Court may in its discretion allow; and if the tenant deposits the arrears of rent with interest and cost of proceedings, within the said period of month or such further period, as the case may be, it shall vacate that order.

1. Object

A tenant is under an obligation to pay or tender the rent in respect of the building under his occupation within 15 days after the expiry of time fixed in the agreement of tenancy or in the absence of such agreement by the last day of next month falling for which the rent is payable. Nonpayment of rent, as per contract and statutory provisions, entitles the landlord to seek possession after sending a registered notice to the tenants intimating the default. If after the receipt of such a notice a genuine tenant pays or tenders the rent together with interest at 6% per annum and postal charges, the right accrued to the landlord to get possession on this ground can defeated. Even after passing of the eviction order, a further right is conferred upon tenant to deposit the rent in arrears under clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 11. The law requires the tenant to be dispossessed if he fails to pay the arrears even after 30 days of passing the final order, and any extension of time thereof. The tenants who have failed to pay the arrears of rent at all the three relevant times were not entitled to any discretionary relief under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. Scope
Nonpayment of rent as a ground of eviction is a very weak ground as the statute provides payment of arrears at various stages to avoid any order of eviction being executed. The petition for eviction filed under this provision gets an order for the arrears mentioned in the notice only. The arrears accrued during the process of litigation is not taken care of in the section. For such arrears either the landlord has to file another petition or resort to section 12 of the Act. Although the rent is the consideration for the contract of lease, the legislature provides very little remedy against the defaulting tenant.
The Act does not provide a provision for allowing the landlord to realize the rent arrears. But the Rent Control Court can order to pay costs up to the amount due as rent arrears. There is no scope for passing money decree for recovery of arrears of rent. The execution petition seeking recovery of arrears of rent per se will not be maintainable.

3. Conditional Order
Order of eviction under section 11 (2)b is a tentative order liable to be vacated under section 11 (2) c. Even a formal application is not necessary under section 11 (2) c, just a memo or statement would suffice to vacate the order.
Eviction on the ground of arrears of rent is not absolute orders, they are conditional orders. It can be vacated by an application under S.11(2)(c) by the tenant.
Eviction order passed under S.11(2)(b) of the Act not to be executed before expiry of the period limited and the same to be vacated on deposit of arrears within that period.
Part payment of rent makes the tenant a defaulter, for he has to make full payment. Sum deposited by tenant falling short of rent due towards first default. The deposited sum cannot be adjusted against the second and third defaults as has been done by the Courts below. The tenant is not entitled to protection.

4. Rent
The court cannot take upon the duty of deciding “reasonable rate of rent payable in respect of the premises” and substitute the same for the rent due by the tenant as mentioned in Section 11(2) b.
A person who got assignment of the building has no right to claim eviction on the ground of arrears of rent which fall due before his assignment unless the right to collect arrears of rent has also been assigned to him by the same document.
Rent is the consideration in lieu of enjoyment of property payable upon accrual of periodical liability.
Landlord was a partner, and on dissolution of the firm the landlords claim of arrears up to the date of dissolution was considered as debt as per the partition deed. There after the landlord cannot claim the arrears under section 11 (2) b. It is only a debt.
When the landlord and tenant agree that the latter is liable to pay rent as well as the municipal tax for the building it is not possible to hold that the stipulation for the payment of municipal tax contravenes is aginst the Rent Control Act.
5. Period of arrears
The Rent Control Court is entitled and has got jurisdiction to pass an order on the basis of rate of rent or period of the arrears as stated by the tenant if the landlord failed to prove his case reagarding these two factors.
Landlord was a partner on dissolution of partnership settlement was executed by the partners on 16/10/1999 and shop rooms have been partitioned among partners. Landlord’s right to claim arrears of rent is controlled by terms of settlement. Arrears prior to 16/10/1999 can be considered as debt for which landlord is not entitled to seek eviction under S.11(2)(b).

The rent is merely a debt. Therefore, whatever might have been due prior to deed of lease could not constitute arrears of rent. It was mere actionable claim.

6. Error in Notice
Error on the quantum of rent is of little consequence while quantifying arrears for the purpose of passing orders. The intimation to the tenant that there is default in payment of rent only is relevant.
7. Civil Suit
Civil Courts jurisdiction to decide question of arrears of rent is not ousted by virtue of Section 11 (2) of the Act. A tenant can be evicted for arrears of rent only under 11 (2) of the Act but the Civil Courts jurisdiction to decide question of arrears of rent is not ousted by the said provision.
The rent arrears is an actionable claim which can be transferred by the landlord.
Section 3 of the T.P. Act defines actionable claim:

8. Rate of interest in civil suit
Section 11 (2) b specifies for 6% interest for arrears. But in a suit for realization of rent, the plaintiff can claim for interest at reasonable rates according to the respective nature of use of the building as commercial or residential. With regard to the rate of interest on the claim for money due as rent arrears in civil suits Section 34 of the CPC has to be prevailed. A tenant is bound by the statute to pay interest at the rate of 6% p.a. over the defaulted amount of rent. Any contra stipulation in the rent deed has no bearing over the provision. Nevertheless in civil suits the landlord is entitled to recover interest on the arrears of rent on the basis of rent deed.

9. Condition for eviction
Arrears of rent is a ground adopted from Transfer of Property Act Section 108(L) and incorporated in Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act to evict a tenant. To constitute that ground for eviction the landlord has to send a registered notice to the tenant intimating the default and the tenant has failed to pay or tender, the rent due together with six percent interest and postal charges incurred in sending the notice within fifteen days of the receipt of notice.

The cause of action arises when landlord sends the above-mentioned notice and 15 days have to be elapsed without payment or tendering the amount due by the tenant.
Rent Control Court has got jurisdiction under S.11(2)b to adjudicate rate of rent, period of arrears etc as stated by the tenant, if the court finds that landlord failed to prove his case on this issue.

10. Defenses
For a petition for eviction on the ground of Arrears of rent under section 11 (2),
(i) Deny the rate of rent and period of arrears so that landlord has to prove both these aspects.
(ii) Deny the service of notice, because the service of notice is a mandatory condition.
(iii) The tenant can take the defense that the building does not belong to the petitioner and thus deny the title of the landlord. Though the landlord cannot evade the Rent Control Act the tenant can evade the summary procedure prescribed in the Rent Control Act by just denying the title of the landlord. The landlord has to go to the Civil Court and there too the tenant gets all the protection of the Rent Control Act. The landlord has to prove the ground under the Rent Control Act in the civil court also, after proving his title, the tenant is not deprived any of his right by denying the title of the landlord.
(iv) Apply for extension of time for payment of arrears, this extension of time can be given according to the discretion of the court and there is no limit.
(v) After all the procedure, i.e. Appeal and revision, deposit the arrears within 30 days of last order. This deposit need only for the original arrears as per the petition, the arrears accrued during the petition need not be deposited, in order to avoid eviction.
The conduct of tenant in the proceedings cannot be taken against him when deciding the case on merit. Any of the ground under this Act is to be proved to evict the tenant. Order must be in terms of the provisions of the Act.
Payment of substantial amount by tenant towards construction cost of building and expenditure for improving the building for the purpose of business is a valid defense for ground of eviction under S.11(2)(b.

11. Service of Notice
Fifteen days after the receipt or refusal of the notice by the tenant, the landlord can make an application to the Rent Control Court to evict the tenant. If the Rent Control Court is satisfied that the tenant has not paid the rent due by him within 15 days after the expiry of the period fixed in the agreement of tenancy and in the absence of any such agreement, by the last day of the month next following that, for which the rent is payable (e.g. Rent for the month of February is in arrears on 31st day of March) the court shall make an eviction order. This eviction order is a conditional order and will be kept in abeyance for one month or such further period as the Rent Control Court may in its discretion allow and if the tenant deposits the arrears of rent with interest and cost of proceedings within the said period the court shall vacate the order. The Rent Control Court can extend the period at its discretion for such other period.
Heirs are joint tenants. Notice to one of the joint tenant is sufficient and the petition maintainable. Notice issued in earlier petition is not sufficient for institution of subsequent proceeding for eviction on arrears of rent.

The legal heirs of the original tenant are joint tenants and not co-tenants. The lawyers notice issued to the original tenant satisfies the requirement under the Proviso to section 11(2)b.

On admission by tenant, Rent Control Court passed an order of eviction on the ground of arrears of rent and granted the tenant a month’s time to deposit the arrears. Tenant failed to deposit the arrears. An appeal filed by the tenant against the order is not maintainable. Tenant cannot be said to be aggrieved, within the meaning of section 18, by an order based on consent.
The amount which the tenant is liable to deposit for the purpose of S. 11(2) is only the rent due at the time of notice and that the Landlords remedy for rent subsequently falls due will be to invoke S. 12 of the Act.

Every tenant is obliged to pay or tender rent to the landlord within 15 days of the month to which the rent relates. The purpose of advance rent is to protect the landlord from the unscrupulous tenant who may run into arrears and vacate the premises and comfortably walk away with arrears The advance rent is available for adjustment or is liable to be refunded at the time of vacating of the premises except where the law or the contract between the parties provides to the contrary.
Landlord borrowed an amount from tenant for construction of tenanted premises. The terms of the agreement definitely casts an obligation on the tenant to pay rent in respect of the premises occupied by him. Rent Control Petition for eviction is maintainable as a landlord – tenant relationship exists between them. Consequently, the provisions of the Rent Control Act are applicable.
Act II of 1965 does not take the civil court’s jurisdiction for recovery of arrears of rent away. The decision in the suit and appeal will be binding on the petitioner.
The Act does not provide a provision for allowing the landlord to realize the rent arrears. But the Rent Control Court can order to pay costs up to the amount due as rent arrears.

12. Rent advance
Where the arrears of rent is smaller than advance amount held by the landlord on account of the tenant, there is no default of rent. Hence if the tenant has evidence of deposit or advance he need pay rent after the deposit is exhausted.
The landlord can get advance from the tenant as security to be returned to the tenant on vacation of the premises. The landlord on his own volition may adjust the advance amount towards arrears of rent but the tenant cannot insist that the landlord should adjust the advance towards rent arrears. The tenant cannot adjust the advance rent towards arrears of rent on his own volition.

13. Value of improvements

Value of improvements made by the tenant on the building cannot be considered by Rent Control Court. Value of improvements made by the tenant cannot be raised in a rent control proceeding even if done with the knowledge and consent of the landlord.
Tenant invested substantial amounts towards improving the building with the consent of the landlord. Unless and until the amount expended towards improving the building is paid back, the landlord is not entitled to seek eviction.

14. Rent Arrears and Limitation Act

The court’s order to vacate will come into effect or crystallize as resjudicata depending upon the action of the tenant. If the tenant deposits the arrears after the judgment is pronounced within the time stipulated the order of the court becomes inoperative. If he fails to deposit or tender the arrears then the order can be executed by evicting the tenant. The reason behind the section is not to secure the benefits of rent to the landlord if the tenant occupies the building, but to protect the tenant from eviction even if he is a defaulting tenant. The primary right of the landlord to get the quid pro quo is uncared for by the Act.

Under S.11 (2) (b), order of eviction can be passed only on satisfaction that the tenant has not paid or tendered the rent due. But the arrears contemplated in S.11 (2) (c) for vacating the order include not only the arrears recoverable through a court of law, but also time barred arrears.
Limitation Act is applicable to the amount due as arrears of rent, but if the tenant wants to continue in the building as a tenant, he has to pay all arrears of rent irrespective of limitation period. But if the tenant vacates the building the landlord can recover the arrears of rent that is within the limitation period by way of a civil suit.

15. Maximum time for disposal Rule 7 (5)
Rule 7 (5) of The Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Rules, 1979
Rule 7 (5) Every application for eviction under clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 11 of the Act, shall as far as possible, be disposed of within a month from the date of filling of the application and if the tenant does not hand over possession within such time as may be specified in the order, the Rent Control Court may take possession of such building by forceful eviction and handover the same to the applicant.

The principle behind the fixation of time limit is that the landlord’s important right to get the rent should be preserved. In the case of arrears of rent no separate execution petition is to be filed, the Rent Control Court itself can take possession of such building by forceful eviction and handover the same to the applicant, if the tenant is neither paying rent nor handing over the possession of the building within the time specified in the order. This rule has got little significance on the light of Section 11 (2) c. This rule is just an eye washer, to cover-up the harsh realities embedded in the Act.
The Rent Control Authorities have the power to extend the time originally granted for the deposit of arrears of rent confirmed in appeal. The Rent Control Court has got the discretion to allow time more than once to the tenant to pay arrears of rent with interest and cost of proceedings under S.11(2)(c) after the expiry of statutory period of one month.

16. Execution
Execution court does not have the right to order restitution under S. 11(2) c. When an order under section 11 (2) (b) is put in execution the execution court is not empowered to receive evidence as to whether arrears of rent, interest or cost has been paid or not.

17. Subsection (c ) and enlargement of time

Eviction on the ground of arrears of rent was allowed. Extension of time was granted once. Rent Control Court has got no power to grant further extension of time after the expiry of the time granted earlier. (Overruled by Karthyayani v. S.N.D.P. Sakha Yogam 2004 (3) KLT (FB))

The Rent Control Court can allow time more than once to the tenant to pay arrears with interest after the expiry of statutory period. Either the Act nor the courts do not recognize or respect the right of the landlord to get even the rent which is the consideration for the rental agreement.
Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is not applicable where there is a default in depositing the rent by the tenant. The provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act must be construed having regard to Section 3 thereof. For filing an application after the expiry of the period prescribed under the Limitation Act or any other special statute a cause of action must arise. Compliance of an order passed by a Court of Law in terms of a statutory provision does not give rise to a cause of action. Instant consequences are provided for under the statute, when there is failure to comply with an order passed by a Court of Law. The court can condone the default only when the statute confers such a power on the Court and not otherwise. In that view of the matter we have no other option but to hold that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has no application in the instant case.
Power to enlarge time in the matter of making requisite deposit under S. 11 (2) c is discretionary, it has to be exercised judiciously on sound legal principles and judicious manner on the basis of facts and circumstances. Whenever discretionary power is exercised courts often taken into account the general equities of the given case. It can be exercised more than once.

The power of the court has also been limited to the extent that it can extend time for such deposit not exceeding three months and so far as the deposit of monthly rent is concerned, by fifteen days. The court’s power, therefore, is restricted. In case tenant deposits the provisional rent as determined by the Court within stipulated period the tenant is relieved by the eviction decree.

Special leave petition is allowed and Supreme Court modifies or reverses the decision of the lower Court. The Supreme court’s decision is operative. Tenant gets benefit of S.11 (2) (c).
Arrears of rent deposited after dismissal of Original Petition filed under Article 227 within 30 days. The tenant is entitled to benefits under section 11 (2) c. 1991 (2) KLT 316 overruled.
Sub tenants cannot resort to S.11 (2) (c) of the Act to get an order u/s 11(2) of the Act.
The order of eviction, if passed against a tenant shall attain finality after the decision of the appellate authority or at the most after the decision of the revisional authority as contemplated under section 20 of the Act. If an order of eviction has been passed under section 11 (2) of the Act, the said order and direction shall become executable after the expiry of one month from the date of the final order passed by the rent control court, the appellate court or the revisional court, as the case may be, subject, however, to the extension of time granted by the aforesaid courts and authorities in terms of clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 11. Proceedings under Act 227, not being extension of the proceedings under the Act would not automatically authorise the Court to extend the time.

How to evict a tenant and various grounds of eviction

Rent Control Act with Rules

What is the use of Judicial System if the justice is not done in the lifetime of a Person

A building owner has filed a rent control petition with No 25/1983 (Rent Control Court, Kottayam) when the building owner was 48 years, the tenant denied the title of the owner and rent control court passed order on 24/10/1991 that as there is dispute of title the civil court only has jurisdiction.

The tenant had tried to do some modification in the building which the Landlord opposed and filed an injunction petition in 1997 in which the court ordered that the tenant can do only painting and whitewashing in the building, and no other work of permanent character can be done by the tenant in the building.

The Building Owner filed OS 200/1992 (Sub Court, Kottayam) and judgment was delivered on 11/6/1999 declaring that the building owner aught to have probated his title deed (his father’s will).

The Building Owner has field appeal with No AS 139/2000 (District Court, Kottayam) and judgment was delivered on 18/7/2003 finding the title of the building owner but remanding the case to the lower court for disposing the suit on any of the grounds mentioned in the rent control Act.

The building owner preferred appeal (FAO 158/2003) (High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam) on that order of remand and the tenant preferred appeal (FAO 136/2005) (High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam) against the finding that the building owners has title.  Common judgment passed on 14/8/2005 confirming the title of the building owner and remanding the case for disposing on any of the ground mentioned in the rent control act with a direction to dispose of the case with in 3 months.

The tenant filed Special Leave Petition Before the Supreme Court of India SLP CC No 1918/2008 ;  SLP No 4837/2008 which was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 15/2/2008

The suit was heard in the lower court (OS 200/1992) (Sub Court, Kottayam) and passed order on 7/7/2011 finding the title of the building owner and finding that the own use claimed by the owner is bonafide.  meanwhile the tenant had gone to the high court in a writ (WP(C) 43/1998 (High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam) which was disposed of on 28/5/2008) claiming that his pleadings has to be amended (which was rejected by the high court).

Against the order of the lower court the tenant preferred an appeal (AS 192/2011) (District Court, Kottayam) mean while the building owner died on 16/5/2012 at the age of 78.

During this 30 years the building owner was shuttling from one court to another and from piller to post with no result.

The irony is that the tenant is occupying the building having 1800 sq. ft. for a meager rent of Rs 125 per month with amounts to Rs. 0.06 per sq. ft.

For this injustice the building owner has filed a Rent control petition for revision of rent (RCOP 34/2011) (Rent Control Court, Kottayam) which was stayed by the Kerala High Court on an order on OP (RC) 2410/2013 (High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam) stating that as there is a unsettled dispute over the title pending in the court as AS 192/2011. OP (RC) 2410/2013 ordered that RCOP 34/2011 can continue pending AS 192/2011.  The High Court of Kerala on 14/08/2013 vacate the stay ordered in OP (RC) 2410/2013 on finding the fact that FAO 158 of 2003 and FAO 136 of 2008 was already ordered finding the title of the petitioner by HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR and HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI. On continuing the trial of RCP 34/2011 the trial court ordered the rent as Rs.10 per square feet in RCOP 34/2011.  The tenant filed RCA 24/2014 and the building owner filled RCA 25/2014 common order enhanced the rent to Rs. 30 per square feet.  The tenant filed RCR 250/2016 and RCR 251/2016 before the High Court of Kerala against the order of the district court. RCR 250/2016 and RCR 251/2016 is ordered on 11/10/2018 by Justice Harilal. The tenants went to Supreme Court of India and filed Special Leave Petition Numbered as SLP (C) 6556 and  6557 of 2019 and is dismissed on 11/3/2019 upholding the order in RCR 250/2016 and RCR 251/2016.

Mean while the landlord had filed petition for arrears of rent RCP 11/2017 which is stayed by the Munciff on the ground that the matter is pending before the High Court. The building Owner filed a OP(RC) 109/2018 before the High court to vacate the order of stay. OPRC 109/2018 ordered in favour of building owner.

AS 192/2011 ordered in favour of the building owner finding the ground of own use.  The tenant filed Regular Second Appeal RSA 1109/2016 before the High Court of Kerala. The same was heard by  Justice Harilal but the order of the judgement not pronounced. Later the case was posted in regular list for further hearing.

From 1983 to 2019 the building owner is shuttling from one court to another.  During these thirty six years the building owner is not getting any remedy for his legal battle in spite of his reverence to the judicial system from the court of law.

The tenant is very affluent and rich.  The tenants are conducting  Kumarakom Hotel, at Kottayam Gandhi Square. Initially taken on rent by Itty Chacko, thereafter his son T. C. Abraham conducted hotel, now his sons T. A. Thampan residing at Flat No. 2A-1, Century Towers Kottayam. Phone No. 9447014797 and worship at Solomon’s Portico and Sunny Abraham alias T.A. Sunny residing at Thyparambil House Kottayam and worship at Abundant Life, Kottayam Phone Number 9496375957 are conducting the case against the landlord in order to grab the property.

T. A. Thampan married Maya Thampan and has Son Joshwin Thampan and works as Chief Strategy Officer at AL Jassar LLC, Muscat, Oman.

T.A. Sunny alias Sunny Abraham married Sherley Sunny and has a daughter Chintu Sunny working at International Modern Hospital, Dubai as Clinical Audiologist and a Son Deepu Sunny who married Lija Mary Jacob and he is Assistant Director at EY (Ernst and Young).

All this happened at Kottayam, Kerala

Is this the type of justice the courts are rendering ?

Is Judiciary a farce ?  A petition before the court if not settled finally and given a remedy within a reasonable time is a waste of time money and effort and make the Judiciary a mockery.

Will a sensible man come to judiciary for getting any remedy for any injustice he has faced ? Is it advisable to seek remedy in a court of law in India ?