Kerala High Court upholds eviction of Kannur shop tenant, says landlord free to start new business

‘Other income’ no bar to start business

• The landlord was able to establish that he required the tenanted premises for the purpose of starting his own business, to which, the argument was that the landlord was doing other businesses at Mysore and as such the claim is not sustainable.

• Unless the claim of the landlord is made with an oblique motive, no court will interfere with the requirement of the landlord.
• The judges emphasised that once a landlord establishes a bona fide requirement meaning a genuine and honest need, not a mere desire, courts will not interfere unless there is proof of an oblique motive.

No reason to interfere

• The high court was particularly mindful that two fact-finding authorities had already assessed the evidence.
• After reviewing the reasoning of the appellate authority, especially its detailed discussion on the landlord’s bona fide requirement, the court concluded there was no legal error warranting interference.

• “We find no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings arrived at by the court below,” the judgment stated.
• The revision petition was therefore dismissed.

Six months’ time

• At the end of the hearing, counsel for the tenant requested additional time to vacate the premises.
• The landlord’s counsel agreed to grant time.
• The high court granted the tenant six months to vacate the shop.
• The relief, however, comes with various conditions.

• The conditions included that the tenant must file an affidavit before the rent control court within two weeks, unconditionally undertaking to vacate and he must continue to pay Rs 5,000 per month as occupational charges during the extended period.
• Failure to comply would expose him to immediate execution of the eviction order.

From rent dispute to high court

• The dispute traces back to 2021, when landlord Abdul Saleem approached the Rent Control Court, Kuthuparamba, seeking eviction of his tenant under sections of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965.
• He alleged two things- the tenant had defaulted in paying rent and that he genuinely required the shop room to start his own business.
• On March 30, 2024, the rent control court allowed the eviction petition stating that arrears of rent were proved and that the landlord’s need was bona fide.

• The court also fixed the fair rent at Rs 5,000 per month .
• The tenant’s appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thalassery was dismissed on August 14, 2024.
• The appellate authority affirmed both findings, on rent arrears and bona fide need.
• Left with no relief, the tenant moved the high court in revision.

Rent arrears: Clear default

• Advocates Abdul Raoof Pallipath and others appearing for the tenant argued that the lower courts had not properly appreciated his defence.
• The more substantial argument raised by the tenant was that the landlord was already engaged in other businesses at Mysore.
• According to the tenant, this showed that the claimed need for the Kannur shop was not genuine.
• However, the court noted that both authorities had clearly found that rent had not been paid in time.

• The appellate authority recorded that the tenant had failed to deposit rent as required and that payments were made only up to September 2025 .
• This, the court held, permits eviction for non-payment of rent.

Supreme Court ruling

• Last year, the Supreme Court ordered eviction of a tenant who occupied a property for around 50 years observing once a landlord proves that he genuinely needs a particular property, the tenant has no right to suggest alternative accommodation.
• On December 2, the top court was hearing an appeal against the Bombay High Court verdict in a dispute related to a commercial property occupied by a tenant located in Kamathipura, Nagpada, Mumbai.

• Referring to a 2016 apex court decision that held that the landlord is the best judge of his own requirements, the court said, “The defendant (tenant) cannot dictate to the plaintiff/landlord regarding suitability of the accommodation and to start the business.”
• While ruling in favour of the landlord, the court took note of the fact that the tenant had been occupying the premises for nearly 50 years and granted time to vacate the premises until June 30, 2026.