Tenant Cannot Question Choice Of Landlord To Live In A 'Hut Like Structure': Kerala HC [Read Judgment]
“The desire of an Indian citizen working abroad to come and settle in India in a land and building owned by him, cannot be doubted.”
The Kerala High Court has observed that a tenant cannot question the choice of a landlord to live in a 'hut like structure'. The division bench comprising of Justice K. Harilal and Justice N. Nagaresh observed that if the desire of the landlords to live in particular area of their choice is found genuine, it has to be respected. Arjun Radhakrishnan, the landlord of the...
The Kerala High Court has observed that a tenant cannot question the choice of a landlord to live in a 'hut like structure'.
The division bench comprising of Justice K. Harilal and Justice N. Nagaresh observed that if the desire of the landlords to live in particular area of their choice is found genuine, it has to be respected.
Arjun Radhakrishnan, the landlord of the premises occupied by A.P.Sreedhari Sivaraj and some others, who is working in USA, filed a petition seeking eviction of his tenant stating that he would be discontinuing his job in USA that he has decided to settle down in Kozhikode in the building now occupied by his tenants.
The High Court bench was considering the contention taken in the revision petition filed by the tenant (challenging concurrent eviction order) that the building is a hut like structure and that the landlord could not reside in such a structure.
Unimpressed with the said argument, the bench observed that persons who acquire or construct houses would like to have the house in particular area of their choice. Justice Nagaresh said:
"Some may prefer to live in the heart of busy city limits, whereas some others may prefer to live away from the maddening crowd. Some may prefer to live within the city limits even if the area is less and building is old. Some others may prefer to live in bigger extent of land and in better building irrespective of its location. It is the choice of the individuals, and in this case, of the landlord. If landlord states that he intends to live in a particular place and building, such desire cannot be tested on the criteria of ordinary prudence. It is the desire of the individual that counts. If the desire is found genuine, it has to be respected."
The court also rejected the contention with regard to the newly acquired building of the landlord in the same city, observing that there are special reasons provided by the landlord for the same. The landlord had deposed that he and his family have been enjoying similar amenities at USA and they would like to have such amenities near their house.
Read Judgment