SJ. EBENEZER versus VELAYUDHAN AND ORS.

Citation: [1997] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 441 · Decided: 11-12-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

SJ.EBENEZER 
v. 
VELA YUDHAN AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 11, 1997 
[DR. AS. ANAND AND K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.] 
Kera/a Buildillgs (Lease and Rellt Co11trol) Act, 1965: Section 11(3). 
Rent Control . alld Eviction-Bolla fide requirement of 
landlord-Lalldlord contellded that allother premises under his occupatloll 
was under immediate threat of acquisition initiated in 1987 by Town Plallning 
Authority under Land Acquisition Act-Landlord's fwther contention that he 
intended to shift his travel business from a hotel room to the premises in 
question was found by the Rent Controller and Revisional Authority to be 
only a mse to evict the te11a11t, the premises being an old building lo~ated in 
a lane which was throughout used for residential purpose~evisional 
Auth01ity also found view taken by Appellate Authority was vitiated by e1Tors 
of law ai1d e/Tors off act-High Court ill petition Ullder A1t. 227, proceeding 
011 the basis of inco1rect facts and pleadillgs, reversed the filldings of 
Revisional Authority-Held : Bona fide requirement must be objectively 
tested-Cannot be based on mere desire of lalldlord-In view of the provision 
of altemate accommodation to the owners affected by acquisition proceedings 
the landlord's contention that his other premises was under immediate threat 
of acquisition is not acceptable-Moreover, the acquisitioll initiated in 1987 
must be deemed to have been either given up or lapsed due to efflux of time 
a11d, there/ ore, the p1i11cipal ground on which the application for eviction was 
presented before the Rent Controller is not available to the landlord-Rent 
Controller and Revisional Authority justified in dismissing the eviction peti-
tion. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
The respondent-landlord filed a petition under Section 11 (3) of the 
Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 seeking eviction of G 
the appellant-tenant from his premises on the ground that the premises 
were required bo11a fide for use by the said landlord. The premises in 
question was an old one, located in a lane . and throughout used for 
residential purposes. It was alleged in the petition that another premises 
under the occupation of the respondent-landlord was under immediate H 
441 
442 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A threat of acquisition by the Town Planning Authority under the Land 
Acquisition Act, 1894. 
The appellant-tenant resisted the petition for eviction alleging that 
the acquisition proceedings initiated in the year 1987 had not taken off and 
there was no threat at all. Even otherwise under the acquisition sche!"e 
B the owners would not be dispossessed until alternate accommodation was 
provided to the owner to be displaced. 
The respondent-landlord in his pleadings had submitted that he was 
running a business of Travel Agency in a hotel room and that he intended 
C to shift this business to the premises in question. The Rent Controller 
dismissed the eviction petition but the Appellate Authority allowed the 
petition. The revision filed by the appellant-tenant was allowed by the 
Revisional Authority on the ground that the view taken by the Appellate 
Authority was vitiated by errors of law and fact. Being aggrieved the. 
respondent-landlord pref.erred a revision to the High Court under Article 
D 227 of the Constitution. High Court allowed the revision on the ground 
that the respondent's travel business being run from a hotel room was 
under threat of acquisition which fact was conceded by the appellant's 
counsel. Hence this appeal. 
E 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. While considering the question of bona ft des, what is 
necessary to bear in mind is that mere desire on the part of the landlord is 
not enough. The desire must be tested objectively and not subjectively. The 
burden lies upon the landlord to establish that he genuinely requires the 
F accommodation for the purpose of starting or continuing his own business. 
G 
The Appellate Authority has not followed the above test before giving the 
findin~ on the question off bona fide need of the limdlord.(448-C-D] 
Mattulal v. Radhe Lal, [1974) 2 SCC 365, relied on. 
2. The respondent's contention that another premises under his 
occupation was under immediate threat of acquisition by Town Planning 
Authority under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is not sustainable in view 
of his own admission in cross-examination before the Rent Controller that 
the Town Planning Scheme envisaged provision of alternate accommoda-
H

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