Making Available Parking Space For Building Visitors Valid Reason For Tenant's Eviction U/S 11(3) Kerala Buildings Act, 1965: High Court

The respondents are the owners in possession of 37 cents of land where Simax Shopping Complex and the petition schedule shop room are situated. Since eviction was ordered under Section 11(3) of the Act, facts with reference to the same alone are relevant. In Simax Shopping Complex, which has five floors, several institutions and establishments are functioning. In order to make available a sufficient and convenient parking area for the customers and staff members coming to the building, the space occupied by the petition schedule shop room and its adjoining room is required. Hence, eviction of the tenant from the petition schedule shop room was sought.

The Revision Petitioner contended that the tenant and his family have been depending for their livelihood on the income generated from the business in the petition schedule shop room. Since no other alternative building is available in the locality, the tenant is entitled to get protection from eviction under the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act.

The Rent Control Court had taken the view that the respondents had established the need urged by them to be bona fide. After holding that the tenant failed to prove the requirements of the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act, eviction was ordered.

The counsel appearing for the petitioner, Advocate P.B. Krishnan, further contended that two upper floors of the Simax Shopping Complex are not occupied since the construction of the same is yet to be regularized. Since there are no occupants on the upper two floors, in the view of the learned counsel, the space now available for parking itself is more than enough, and therefore, there is no justification in claiming eviction of the petitioners and also the tenant in the adjacent room.

Court referred to the Kerala High Court decision in which the Court considered the question of whether eviction of a building tenant can be sought on the specific reason of making available parking area for another building of the landlord and had held that the word 'building' in ordinary language comprises not only the fabric of building; but the land upon which it stands also. Furthermore, 'own occupation of the building' contemplated under Section 11(3) of the Act encompasses occupation of the space occupied by the building, and after the demolition of the building in occupation of the tenant also.

The Court observed that the petition schedule shop room and its adjacent room occupy only a small area, considering that the total extent of the property is 37 cents. It remains the fact that the petition schedule shop room and also its adjacent room is in front of the Simax Shopping Complex, which faces the National Highway. Although the area occupied by these rooms is small, the inconvenience of parking more vehicles in the remaining front yard of the building is evident. As long as it is not shown that out of some oblique motive, the landlords have been trying to evict the tenants, such a claim can only be said to be bona fide.

Referring to previous Apex Court and High Court decisions the Court reiterated that once, on the basis of the materials on record, the landlord has succeeded in showing that the need to occupy the premises is natural, real, sincere and honest, and not a ruse to evict the tenant from the said premises, the landlord will certainly be entitled to an order of eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act, of course, subject to the first and second provisos to Section 11(3) of the Act, held that the concurrent findings of the courts below that the need urged by the respondents is bona fide is not liable to be interfered with.