9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Bona fide need of the landlords under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. 2. Sub-letting and material alteration under Sections 11(4)(i) and 11(4)(ii) of the Act. 3. Protection under Section 11(17) of the Act for continuous occupation since 1940. Detailed Analysis: 1. Bona fide need of the landlords under Section 11(3) of the Act: The landlords sought eviction on the ground of bona fide need, claiming that their sons, who had completed their education, wanted to start their own business in the scheduled building. The trial court initially denied the eviction, but the appellate authority reversed this decision, finding the need genuine. The High Court upheld the appellate authority's decision. The Supreme Court, after scrutinizing the evidence, agreed with the lower courts, stating that the landlords' desire to expand their business to Calicut was genuine. The court emphasized that it is the landlord's prerogative to decide the nature and place of business, and tenants cannot dictate terms. The court also referenced previous judgments to support the view that subsequent events during protracted litigation do not affect the bona fide requirement established at the time of the petition. 2. Sub-letting and material alteration under Sections 11(4)(i) and 11(4)(ii) of the Act: The landlords also sought eviction on the grounds of unauthorized sub-letting to a tailor and material alterations to the building. Both the appellate authority and the High Court found these claims unsubstantiated and denied eviction on these grounds. The Supreme Court did not address the merits of these findings as there was no cross-appeal before it. 3. Protection under Section 11(17) of the Act for continuous occupation since 1940: The tenant claimed protection under Section 11(17) of the Act, arguing that they had been in continuous occupation since 1940. The trial court, appellate authority, and High Court all found that the tenant company, incorporated in 1948, did not have the same partners as the original firm and thus could not claim continuous occupation. The Supreme Court concurred, noting the lack of evidence to prove that the same partners of the old firm continued in the new private limited company. The court referenced several cases to illustrate that voluntary formation of a new company requires proof of continuity in membership to claim protection under Section 11(17). Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the eviction on the ground of bona fide need under Section 11(3) and rejecting the tenant's claim for protection under Section 11(17). The court granted the tenant nine months to vacate the premises, provided an undertaking is filed within four weeks. If the undertaking is not filed, the landlords may execute the order with police assistance. No order as to costs was made.
|
