1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3328   OF 2011

(Arising out of SLP(C) No.2705/2007)

 KANNACHANKANDY CHANDRAN & ORS.                 Appellant(s)

                VERSUS

 PEETIKAKANDY ACHUTHAN & ORS.                   Respondent(s)

O R D E R

Leave granted.

This  appeal  has  been  preferred  against  the  

judgment and order dated 10.08.2006 passed by the  

High Court of Kerala in C.R.P. No.546 of 2002 and  

order  dated  25.09.2006  in  R.P.  No.740  of  2006,  

whereby the High Court has set aside the order of  

eviction  passed  by  the  Rent  Control  Appellate  

Authority,  Kozhikode  and  allowed  the  revision  

petition filed by the respondents.  

The facts which are necessary for the disposal  

of this appeal are briefly recapitulated hereunder:

The appellants herein are the landlords of the

2

building  premises  which  is  situated  in  Kozhikode  

District,  Kerala.  The  said  building  was  given  on  

rent  by  the  father  of  the  appellants,  namely,  

Kannachankandy  Kannad  (since  deceased)  to  one  

Peetikakandy  Achuthan  (respondent  No.1  herein)  in  

the year 1986 at a monthly rent of Rs.175/-. The  

rent  was  subsequently  enhanced  to  Rs.210/-  per  

month. The rent was paid upto October, 1993 but the  

rent  accrued  thereafter  remained  unpaid  by  

respondent  No.1  thereby  committing  default  in  

payment of arrears of rent.   

A petition for eviction of the tenant from the  

building premises was filed under Section 11(2)(b),  

11(3),  11(4)(i),  11(4)(ii)  and  11(4)(iii)  of  the  

Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965  

(for short, 'the Act'), before the Rent Controller  

on the ground of arrears of rent, bona fide need,  

subletting  and  material  alteration.  The  Rent  

Controller  allowed  the  said  petition  in  part  and  

ordered  eviction  under  Section  11(2)(b)  on  the  

ground of arrears of rent but dismissed the petition  

on all other grounds.  

3

On  appeal  by  the  landlord  against  the  

dismissal of the petition on the other grounds, the  

Rent  Control  Appellate  Authority   affirmed  the  

finding  of  the  Rent  Controller  under  Section  

11(2)(b) of the Act and remanded the matter to the  

Rent Controller for fresh decision on other grounds.  

After the  remand, the  Rent Controller  found  

all the grounds against the landlord, including the  

one under Section 11(2)(b) of the Act and dismissed  

the eviction petition vide order dated 3.11.1999.  

Against  the  said  order  passed  by  the  Rent  

Controller, the landlord preferred an appeal before  

the  Rent  Control  Appellate  Authority.  The  Rent  

Control Appellate  Authority allowed  the appeal  of  

the  landlord  reversing  the  findings  of  the  Rent  

Controller  under  Sections  11(2)(b),  11(4)(i)  and  

11(4)(iii) of the Act and eviction was ordered.  

Aggrieved by the order of the eviction passed  

by  the  Rent  Control  Appellate  Authority,  the  

respondents  preferred  a  civil  revision  petition  

before the Kerala High Court. The High Court while

4

reversing the findings of the Rent Control Appellate  

Authority  under  Sections  11(2)(b),  11(4)(i)  &  

11(4)(iii)  of  the  Act,  set  aside  the  order  of  

eviction  and  allowed  the  revision  petition.  The  

landlord  filed  a  review  petition  before  the  High  

Court  contending  that  after  the  remand,  eviction  

under Section 11(2)(b) was not pursued before the  

Rent Control Court as the same had been affirmed by  

the Rent Control Appellate Authority and remand was  

ordered only on the grounds other than the one under  

Section 11(2)(b), and therefore, the Rent Controller  

should not have considered the claim for eviction  

under  Section  11(2)(b)  afresh.  The  High  Court  

restored the order of eviction only under Section  

11(2)(b) and disposed of the review petition.  

Hence,  the  landlords  are  before  us  in  this  

appeal, by special leave.  

We  have  heard  the  learned  counsel  for  the  

parties and perused the impugned judgment as well as  

the judgments passed by the Rent Control Appellate  

Authority.

5

In  our  considered  view,  the  High  Court  has  

erred in reversing the findings of the Rent Control  

Appellate Authority  by not  allowing the  eviction,  

especially when the tenant (1st respondent herein)  

had acquired another building in the same locality  

which  is  suitable  for  his  business.  The  impugned  

judgment is, therefore, erroneous and unsustainable  

and the same is set aside.  

The appeal is accordingly allowed. The parties  

are directed to bear their respective costs.  

However,  in  the  facts  and  circumstances  of  

this case, the respondents are granted one year's  

time  for  vacating  the  premises  upon  filing  usual  

undertaking  in  the  Registry  of  this  Court  within  

four weeks from today.  

.....................J (DALVEER BHANDARI)

.....................J (DEEPAK VERMA)

New Delhi; April 11, 2011.