P. KESAVAN(DEAD) THROUGH LRS. versus AMMUKUTTY AMMA & ORS.

Citation: [1988] 2 S.C.R. 81 · Decided: 26-11-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SABYASACHI MUKHERJI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

P. KESAVAN(DEAD) THROUGH LRS. 
A 
); 
v. 
AMMUKUTTY AMMA & ORS. 
NOVEMBER 26, 1987 
-'1 
[SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND S. RANGANATHAN, JJ.) 
B 
f 
Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965: ss. 11(3), 
17 & 20-Eviction-Bona fide need of landlord-Tenant using build-
ing for non·residen{ial purpose-Landlord whether entitled to seek 
eviction on grounds of residential use. 
c 
Sub-section (3) of s. 11 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent 
Control) Act, 1965 permits eviction of a tenant where the landlord 
bona fide needs the building for his own occupation. The second 
proviso thereto excepts the tenant depending for his livelihood mainly 
on business carried on in such building. Sub-s. (1) of s. 17 interdicts 
.. 
conversion of a residential building into a non-residential one or vice· 
D 
versa and division of such building into separate portions except with 
the permission of the Accommodation Controller. The proviso thereto 
makes the consent of the landlord necessary where such conversion 
y~ 
involves structural alteration of the building. 
The premises in question was being used by the tenant for non-
E 
residential purpose. The respondent-landlord required it bona fide for 
his self-occupation. The Rent Controller granted permission under 
) 
s. 11(3) for eviction of the tenant. The Appellate Authority and the 
District Judge in revision did not interfere with the concurrent 
-\ 
findings of facts on the bona fide need of the landlord. 
F 
In second revision the contention that since the requirements of 
the second proviso to s. 11(3) had not been fulfilled, the landlord was 
not entitled to eviction was rejected by the High Court on the ground 
that this was a question of fact and all the courts had found in favour 
of the landlord. 
G 
~. 
In the appeal by special leave, °it was contended for the appellant 
that since the building in question was used for non-residential pur-
pose by the tenant and the landlord required the same for a residential 
purpose, such a need could not justify tenant's eviction by virtue of s. 
17 of the Act which prohibited such conversion. 
H 
81 
82 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1988] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Dismissing the appeal, 
c 
D 
HELD: 1. The landlord is entitled to eviction. It is found as a 
fact that he bona fide needed the premises in question for his own use 
and occupation. Therefore, s. 11(3) has been complied with. [84D·EJ 
The prescriptions of s. 17 are not attracted to the instant case. 
The conversion as contemplated by s. 17(1) for which permission was 
required is conversion by the tenant and cannot be a conversion by the 
landlord. The use of expression "such conversion" in the proviso to 
s. 17( l) indicates that in case of conversion by the tenant permission is 
required on the consent of the landlord. Further-more, the term 
"convert" therein does not denote a mere change in the mode of 
occupation but covers only alterations of the physical features. Putting 
to a different purpose the user of the building is not a conversion of 
the building as such. The building was used for non-residential 
purposes and the purpose for which it was sought was for residential 
purpose. It has been found that the building has rooms which can be 
used as bed rooms, sitting rooms etc. and it has a kitchen and dining 
hall. No alteration or conversion is required if the building is to be 
used for residential purpose. There was, therefore, no conversion of 
the building as such involved in the instant case, but a change of user 
of the building. [86A; 85C·F, 86B l 
E 
Muhammed v. Abdul Rahiman, [1983] K.L.T. 874 and Das 
Naik v. Narayanan, [1980] K.L.T. 951, approved. 
( 
-,
[Since the appellants-tenants have been in possession of the 
"l 
premises for sometime, it was directed that the decree for eviction 
( 
shall not be executed till 30.9.1988 provided they pay arrears of rent, 
F 
if any, within one month, and undertake to hand over vacant and 
peaceful possession, to pay future compensation month by month 
before lOth of every month and not to induct any other person. l [860-G] 
G 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2 of 
1982. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.10.1981 of the Kerala 
High Court in C. R.P. No. 1927 of 1987. 
f 
N. Sudhakaran for the Appellants. 
H 
E.M.S. Anam for the Respondents. 
I 
1 
P. KESAVAN v. AMMUKU1TY (MUKHARJI, J.] 
83 
The J udgment of the Court was delivered by 
A 
SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. This appeal by special leave is 
directed ag

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.