Case Note & Summary
The case arose from a rent control proceeding before the Additional Munsiff Court-I, Kozhikode, in R.C.P. No. 35 of 2022. The respondent had filed the rent control petition on 03-06-2022 seeking eviction. The petitioner, who is the tenant, filed a written statement on 18-05-2024. Subsequently, on 19-07-2025, the petitioner filed I.A. No. 1 of 2025, which was an interlocutory application. The respondent filed a counter statement to that application on 01-11-2025. The Rent Control Court, by order dated 22-06-2026, rejected I.A. No. 1 of 2025. The petitioner then filed the present original petition, O.P.(R.C.) No. 146 of 2026, before the High Court of Kerala challenging that order. The High Court noted that the petitioner had filed the present petition after three years and the matter had been set down for ex parte hearing on two occasions. The Rent Control Court had observed that the purpose of the petition was to drag on the litigation, and the High Court found this observation not unfounded. The Rent Control Court had also relied on the settled position of law that even a landlord having another source of income can seek eviction to start a new business or income-generating activity, and this legal position furnished a ground for rejecting the petition. The High Court held that the prayer made in the petition was not legally tenable and that the Rent Control Court's observation did not call for any interference. The original petition was accordingly dismissed. The final decision favored the respondent, who was the landlord in the rent control proceedings.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Eviction - Right of Landlord to Seek Eviction for New Business Despite Other Income - Not mentioned - The Rent Control Court rejected tenant's application on the ground that a landlord having another source of income can seek eviction to start a new business or income-generating activity. The High Court found no reason to interfere and dismissed the original petition, holding the prayer was not legally tenable and the petition was filed to drag litigation after three years and two ex parte hearings. Held that the Rent Control Court's observation did not call for interference (Paras 2-3). B) Civil Procedure - Abuse of Process - Dismissal of Belated Petition - Not mentioned - The present original petition was filed after three years and the matter was set down for ex parte hearing on two occasions, indicating an attempt to drag on litigation. The High Court held that the observation of the Rent Control Court that the purpose of the petition is to drag on the litigation did not appear to be unfounded and the prayer made was not legally tenable (Paras 2-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Rent Control Court's rejection of IA No. 1 of 2025 was legally tenable, particularly the ground that a landlord with another source of income can still seek eviction to start a new business or income-generating activity, and whether the High Court should interfere under Article 227.
Final Decision
The original petition was dismissed. The High Court upheld the order dated 22-06-2026 in I.A. No. 1 of 2025 in R.C.P. No. 35 of 2022 passed by the Rent Control Court/Additional Munsiff Court-I, Kozhikode.
Law Points
- Even a landlord having another source of income can seek eviction to start a new business or income-generating activity
- petition filed after three years and two ex parte hearings to drag on litigation not legally tenable
- Rent Control Court's observation does not call for interference
