IMPORTANT POINT
When an order of eviction is passed on one of the several grounds urged by the landlord, the landlord-respondent can in a revision filed by tenant-appellant under Section 20 of Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 support the order for eviction by disputing correctness of findings adverse to him, on another ground for eviction and urging before the revisional court to uphold the availability of such ground so as to sustain the order of eviction.

Headnote:(i) Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965-Sections 11(3), 8 and 20-Order of eviction passed on ground of non-payment and not on other grounds pleaded-Revision filed by tenant under Section 20-Landlord in that revision supporting order of eviction by disputing correctness of findings adverse to him on another ground for eviction and urging before revisional court to uphold the availability of such ground also so as to sustain the order of eviction-Whether permissible in law? (Yes)-Case law discussed (CPC 1908-Order 41 Rule 22).
       Held : We agree with the view taken by the High Courts of Madhya Pradesh and Madras. We are of the opinion that -
        (i) There is no reason to read and interpret Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 narrowly and limit the scope of revisional jurisdiction conferred on the High Court thereby;
        (ii) Once a revision petition is entertained by the High Court, whichever be the party invoking the revisional jurisdiction, the High Court acquires jurisdiction to call for and examine the records of the authority subordinate to it. The records relating to any order and/or any proceedings, are available to be examined by the High Court for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the (a) legality, (b) regularity, or (c) propriety of the impugned order, including any part of the order, or proceedings. The only limitation on the scope of High Court s jurisdiction is that the order or proceedings sought to be scrutinized must be of the subordinate authority. Any illegality, irregularity or impropriety coming to its notice is capable of being corrected by the High Court by passing such appropriate order or direction as the law requires and justice demands;
        (iii) Any aggrieved party , the expression employed in Section 20(1), means a person feeling aggrieved by the ultimate decision, that is, the operative part of the order. A party to the proceedings, who has succeeded in securing the relief prayed for, is not a party aggrieved though the order contains a finding or two adverse to him. The respondent can support the order and pray for the ultimate decision being sustained, without filing a revision of his own, and for achieving such end he may seek reversal of any findings recorded against him. However, if the non-petitioning party feels entitled to a more beneficial or larger order in his favour but was allowed a lesser or smaller relief then to the extent of claiming the more beneficial or larger relief he should have filed a revision petition of his own as he was an aggrieved party to that extent.
       There is, therefore, no doubt in the present case that in a revision preferred under Section 20 of the Act by the tenant laying challenge to the propriety of the decision of the Appellate Authority under Section 11(8) of the Act, the landlord could have urged that the order for eviction could be sustained under Section 11(3) of the Act also. The High Court has not erred in permitting the landlord to urge such a plea in the revision filed by the tenant though the landlord did not file any revision of his own. A landlord who has succeeded in securing an order of eviction on one of the several grounds urged by him cannot be said to be a person aggrieved by such order. He cannot file a revision rather he can feel satisfied with the order. The person aggrieved is the tenant and in a revision preferred by the tenant it is only just and equitable that the landlord should be permitted to support the order of eviction by disputing correctness of the finding recorded in the impugned order whereby the availability of additional ground for eviction was negatived. Such a right has to be necessarily spelled out in favour of the landlord who has succeeded from the court below else there would be grave injustice. (Paras 17 and 18)
       (ii) Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965-Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(8)-Sub-tenant purchasing property-Eviction petition on grounds that appellant was in arrears of rent and that the respondent occupying only a part of the building required additional accommodation in occupation of the appellant for the landlord s personal use-Rent Controller decreed under Section 11(2)(b) but rejected under Section 11(8)-High Court also holding non-availability of ground for eviction under Section 11(8) of the Act-Whether High Court was right?-(Yes) on applicability of doctrine of merger under Section 111(d) of Transfer of Property Act, 1882-Appeal dismissed (Transfer of Property Act, 1882-Sections 111(d) r/w 109-Merger).
       Held : It is, thus, clear that in a lease governed by the provisions of the T.P. Act or the principles emerging therefrom as applicable in India, the transfer of a part of leased premises by the owner in favour of the sub-tenant, holding sub-lease from the tenant, would result in merger. It will be a strange proposition to urge or to accept that although the respondent has purchased the reversion in the entire estate consisting of Doors No. 6/482 and 6/483 and the appellant has become the respondent s tenant as to both the doors still the respondent continues to be a sub-tenant of appellant in respect of Door No. 6/482. The respondent cannot be an owner and sub-lessee both and at the same time. The smaller estate of sub-tenancy shall sink or drown into the larger estate of ownership as the two cannot co-exist. The sub-tenant, i.e. the respondent, has not acquired only a share of the landlord-owner s estate nor an ownership in part confined to sub-tenancy premises; what he has acquired under the deed dated 12.9.1988 is the full ownership in the entire premises. The right of reversion vesting in the then owners, so far as the appellant is concerned, stands fully and entirely vested in the respondent. There is nothing to hold that the intention of the parties to the deed dated 12.9.1988 was not to effect a merger and confer the estate of owner on the sub-tenant (the respondent). Undoubtedly, on 12.9.1988, the appellant s estate did intervene but that is of no consequence in view of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. The sale deed is not under challenge. There is nothing to prevent the splitting up of tenancy and resulting in statutory attornment by the tenant-appellant in favour of the sub-tenant-respondent on the factum of transfer of full ownership, including reversion, under the deed dated 12.9.1988 being brought to his notice which would take effect from the date of the deed. We are, therefore, of the opinion that on 12.9.1988 the sub-tenancy of the respondent held under the appellant to the extent of sub-leased premises terminated by merger and the respondent became the owner-landlord of the entire premises consisting of two Doors. So far as the apportionment of rent is concerned, that would depend on consensus between the owner and the respondent. In the absence of consent or a dispute arising, the same would be determined by a competent forum whether the Rent Controller or the Civil Court. The applicability of Section 11(8) of the Act is squarely attracted and the respondent could have availed the benefit thereof for evicting the appellant. For all the foregoing reasons we do not find the decree for eviction liable to be interfere with. The appeals filed by the tenant are dismissed. The appeals filed by the landlord are allowed. However, the appellant is granted four months time from today for vacating the suit premises subject to his clearing all the arrears of rent and filing an usual undertaking, both within three weeks from today, in the executing court. No order as to the costs. (Paras 25 and 26)

JUDGMENT

R.C. Lahoti, J.-Leave to appeal granted in all the petitions.

2. The suit property is a building situated within the jurisdiction of Rent Control Court of Kozhikode. The plan of the property shows that it is a shop with openings on two sides. Though the property is one, however, it has been numbered by the local authority by assigning two Door Nos., i.e. Door No. 6/481 and 6/482. The small corner of the shop situated between the openings on the two sides has been assigned No. 6/482 while the remaining entire shop is assigned Door No. 6/481. The property was owned by Kunhilakshmi alias Leelamma and others and held on tenancy by Nalakath Sainuddin, the appellant, on a monthly rent of Rs. 65/-, the tenancy being a single tenancy for Doors Nos. 6/481 and 6/482. The tenancy had commenced in the year 1969. Sometime in the year 1972, Door No. 6/482 was sublet by the appellant to the respondent Koorikadan Sulaiman on a monthly rent of Rs. 100/-. On 12.9.1988, the respondent purchased the entire property (i.e. including both the Doors) from the then owners of the property. The respondent then served a notice on the appellant calling upon him to surrender possession over the property in his possession. The notice was followed by an application filed by the respondent in the Rent Control Court for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building on three grounds, viz., (i) that the appellant was in arrears of rent, (ii) that the building was bona fide needed for his own occupation, and (iii) that the respondent occupying only a part of the building required additional accommodation in occupation of the appellant for the landlord s personal use, the grounds as contemplated respectively by Sections 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter, the Act , for short).

3. The Rent Control Court negated the availability of grounds under sub-sections (3) and (8) of Section 11 of the Act but ordered the eviction of the appellant on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent under Section 11(2)(b). Both the parties preferred their respective appeals before the Rent Control Appellate Authority. The appeal preferred by the tenant was dismissed. The appeal preferred by the landlord was allowed in part. The eviction of the appellant was ordered under Section 11(8) of the Act in addition to Section 11(2)(b), as directed by the Rent Control Court. The dismissal of claim for eviction under Section 11(3) by the Rent Control Court was upheld by the Appellate Authority. Feeling aggrieved by the decision of the Appellate Authority, the tenant preferred a revision under Section 20 of the Act before the High Court. The landlord did not prefer any revision against the order of the Appellate Authority. In the revision preferred by the tenant, the High Court has, by its impugned judgment, upheld the order of eviction under Section 11(2)(b). As to availability of ground of eviction under Section 11(8), the High Court has held that the same was not available to the landlord. However, in the opinion of the High Court, the order for eviction could be sustained under Section 11(3) of the Act. Accordingly, the High Court modified the judgment of the Appellate Authority by holding that in addition to the ground under Section 11(2)(b), the order for eviction would be sustainable under Section 11(3) of the Act. The tenant has filed two petitions seeking leave to file appeals by special leave. The landlord has also filed two petitions seeking special leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court and praying for eviction of the tenant under Section 11(8) of the Act also. However, in the narration of facts herein we have referred to the status of the parties as they are arrayed in appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 1599-1600/2001 filed by tenant.

4. In so far as the order for eviction under Section 11(2)(b) of the Act is concerned, the learned counsel for the tenant submitte

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2002 Supreme(SC) 662

Cases Referred (10)