Bona fide personal requirement must subsist through final adjudication; rent may be revised in light of market realities.

An eviction claim based solely on the landlord's personal bona fide requirement under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act did not survive after the original petitioners died, because the pleaded need had to subsist until final adjudication and the legal representatives could not continue the case on an unpleaded different basis. The tenant could therefore not be evicted on that ground. Separately, the rent fixed by the High Court was found inadequate in light of the premises' nature, location, size, and prevailing rental indicators, so the rent was revised upward, while leaving the parties free to seek fair-rent determination before the competent forum.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the eviction claim based on the landlords' personal requirement survived after the death of the original petitioners so as to be continued by their legal representatives; (ii) whether the rent fixed by the High Court required further modification.

Issue (i): Whether the eviction claim based on the landlords' personal requirement survived after the death of the original petitioners so as to be continued by their legal representatives.

Analysis: The eviction petition was founded solely on the owners' own bona fide need for personal occupation under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control Act), 1965. No pleading was raised that the premises were required for any dependent family member. The original landlords died during the proceedings, and the legal representatives sought to continue the matter on a different basis. The Court held that subsequent events affecting the subsistence of the pleaded need could not be ignored, and that in a case of bona fide requirement the need must continue till final adjudication. Since the pleaded personal requirement had not survived the death of the original petitioners and no independent case of dependent-family-member requirement had been made out, the proposed continuation by the legal representatives would amount to introducing a new and different case.

Conclusion: The eviction claim on the ground of personal requirement did not survive, and the tenant could not be evicted on that basis.

Issue (ii): Whether the rent fixed by the High Court required further modification.

Analysis: The High Court had enhanced the rent modestly, but the Court considered the nature, location, size, and market indicators of the premises, together with the material placed on record regarding prevailing rental value. On that basis, the earlier enhancement was found to be inadequate and a further tentative revision was warranted, while leaving open the remedy of fair-rent proceedings before the competent forum.

Conclusion: The rent fixation was modified upward.

Final Conclusion: The eviction relief failed, but the monetary terms governing occupation were substantially revised, leaving the parties free to seek fair-rent determination in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: In a bona fide requirement eviction case, the pleaded need must subsist until final adjudication, and a continuation by legal representatives cannot be permitted on a wholly different unpleaded basis after the original landlord's death; however, the court may mould ancillary relief such as rent in light of subsequent developments and market realities.

---