Landlord need not examine Vastu consultant in eviction case merely because building renovation was on such consultant's advice: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court recently held that a landlord is not obligated to examine a Vastu consultant in an eviction case merely because he/she on the advice of the Vastu consultant decided to renovate the building [Sanal Kumar v NSS Karayogam]..A division bench of Justices PB Suresh Kumar and CS Sudha, therefore upheld a lower court order which had allowed the landlord-respondent, Nair Service Society (NSS) to evict the tenants in one of its buildings. “Merely for the reason that the said decision was taken after obtaining the advice of a 'vasthu' consultant, it cannot be said that it is obligatory for the landlord to examine the 'vasthu' consultant to prove their bona fides of the need," the order said..The case set out by NSS was that on consultation with a Vastu consultant, it intended to convert the room occupied by the tenant for proper and easy entrance to their office and to have a parking place for the vehicles of those who come to their office and school.The tenant, Sanal Kumar objected to the same contending that the the eviction was not bona fide, as a convenient parking place cannot be created by converting the tenanted premises as the entrance to the office and school of the landlord.On an eviction petition by NSS, the Rent Control Court ordered eviction, both under Sections 11(3) and 11(4)(iv) ) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The tenant appealed against the decision of the Rent Control Court to the Appellate Authority which set aside the order of eviction under Section 11(4)(iv) but affirmed the order under Section 11(3) which allows eviction if the landlord needs the building for his own occupation of for occupation by any family member. The tenant aggrieved by the said decision of the Appellate Authority moved the High Court by way of the present revision petition. It was argued by the counsel for the revision petitioner that even though it was stated by the landlord in the eviction petition that the eviction was based on the advice given by a Vastu consultant, they did not examine the Vastu consultant in the proceedings before the lower forums. However, the High Court said that the landlord has no obligation to examine the Vastu consultant just because he took the advice of such consultant before evicting the tenant for construction purposes."Needless to say, the concurrent decisions of the authorities below on the claim of the landlord under Section 11(3) of the Act cannot be said to be illegal, irregular, and improper in any manner,” the Court said.The Court, therefore, upheld the order of Appellate Authority and dismissed the revision petition..The petitioner was represented by advocates KS Karunamol and ES Ashraf. The respondent was represented by advocates RC Nair, Raghul Sudheesh, KJ Glaxon and J Lakshmi..[Read Order]