1. Landlady sought eviction for married daughter and son-in-law under Rent Control Act. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2000 Supreme(SC) 556
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.P.Misra : V.N.Khare
Koyilerian Janaki
Versus
Rent Controller (Munsiff) , Cannanore
Case No. : 667 of 1997
Date of Decision : 3/14/00
For eviction under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, the landlord must specifically plead and prove the dependency of the family member. Additionally, the revisional jurisdiction under Section 20 is broader than Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Headnote:(A) Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act - Section 11(3) - Eviction on ground of bona fide need for family members - To succeed in a petition for eviction for the occupation of a family member, the landlord is required to plead and substantiate three essential ingredients: (i) the person for whose need the premises are required is a member of the landlord's family, (ii) such member of the family is dependent on the landlord, and (iii) there is a bona fide need - In the absence of a specific pleading regarding the dependency of the family member, the petition for eviction under Section 11(3) cannot succeed. (Para 2)
(B) Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act - Section 20 - Revisional jurisdiction of the District Judge - The power to call for and examine records to satisfy itself as to the legality, regularity or propriety of an order is of greater amplitude than the power of revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure - Revisional jurisdiction is not limited to the mere question of jurisdiction and allows the court to interfere with orders suffering from legal infirmity. (Para 3)
(C) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Scope of supervisory jurisdiction - Where a special Act governing landlord-tenant disputes does not provide for a second appeal or revision to the High Court to ensure finality, power under Article 227 is exercisable only where a grave error has caused injustice to a party. (Para 4)
Facts of the case:
A landlady filed a petition for eviction of a tenant on the grounds of bona fide need for the occupation of her married daughter and son-in-law, as well as for demolition and reconstruction. While the Rent Control Court dismissed the petition, the appellate court allowed it. On further revision, the District Judge set aside the appellate order, noting that the landlady failed to plead the dependency of the daughter and son-in-law. The High Court subsequently set aside the revisional order, holding that the District Judge had exceeded his jurisdiction.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the language of Section 11(3) of the Act is plain and requires the landlord to prove that the family member is dependent on them. Since this was not pleaded, the appellate court was unjustified in allowing the eviction. Furthermore, the District Judge's revisional power under Section 20 is broad enough to address legality and propriety, making the High Court's intervention under Article 227 improper.
Issues: Whether the landlord must plead and prove the dependency of family members to seek eviction under Section 11(3); whether the revisional jurisdiction under Section 20 is limited to jurisdictional errors; and whether the High Court's interference under Article 227 was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: Dependency of the family member is a mandatory pleading and evidentiary requirement under Section 11(3) of the Act. The revisional power under Section 20 is wider than that under Section 115 CPC and allows for the correction of legal infirmities. Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 should be exercised sparingly in special statutes intended to provide finality.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- real property
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Tenant argued absence of pleading and evidence that married daughter and son-in-law were dependent on landlady. (Para 2 )
3. Landlord must plead and prove three ingredients: family member, dependency, and bona fide need under Section 11(3). (Para 2 )
4. A landlord seeking eviction for a family member must plead and substantiate that member is dependent on them. (Para 2 )
5. Appeal allowed; revisional court order restored; High Court judgment set aside. (Para 5 , 6 )
6. What must a landlord plead and prove under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act when seeking eviction for a family member?
The landlord must plead and substantiate three ingredients: that the person is a family member, that the member is dependent on the landlord, and that there is a bona fide need. (Para 2 )
7. What is the scope of revisional jurisdiction of the District Judge under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act?
The revisional power under Section 20 is not limited to jurisdiction alone but allows the District Judge to examine the legality, regularity, or propriety of any order passed by the appellate court. (Para 3 )
8. When should the High Court exercise its power under Article 227 of the Constitution in rent control matters?
The High Court should exercise its power under Article 227 only when a grave error has caused an injustice to a party, not to interfere with every revisional order. (Para 4 )
(1) THE tenant is in appeal before us. The respondent who is the landlady of the premises in dispute filed a petition before the Rent Control Court for eviction of the appellant herein on the grounds that she bona fide needs the building for the occupation of her married daughter and son-in-law who are medical practitioners and also for demolition of the premises and its reconstruction. The Rent Control Court found that there is no relationship of landlord-tenant between the parties. Therefore, the petition filed by the landlady was dismissed. Aggrieved, the landlady filed an appeal against the order of the Rent Control Court. The appellate court found that the need of the landlady is bona fide and the building required demolition for reconstruction. Aggrieved, the tenant preferred a revision petition under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The learned District Judge found that the landlady has neither pleaded the material ingredients of Section 11(3) of the Act in her petition for eviction nor led any evidence in that respect. Therefore, she was not entitled to succeed. Consequently, the revision petition was allowed and the order of the appellate court was set aside. The landlady thereafter preferred a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution before the High Court challenging the order passed by the learned District Judge in his revisional jurisdiction. The High Court was of the view that the revisional court acted in excess of its jurisdiction conferred upon it and thus set aside the said order and the writ petition was allowed.
(2) LEARNED counsel appearing for the appellant urged that in the absence of any pleading in the petition and evidence to the effect that the married daughter and son-in law are dependent on the landlady, the petition filed by the landlady for eviction of the appellant was liable to be rejected and the revisional court acted within its jurisdiction when it set aside the order of the appellate court. On the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, the first question that arises for consideration is whether the landlady was required under law to plead and substantiate that her married daughter and the son-in-law for whose occupation the building was required were dependent on her. The relevant portion of Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act is extracted below:
"11. (3) A landlord may apply to the Rent Control Court for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building if he bona fide needs the building for his own occupation or for the occupation by any member of his family dependent on him."
(emphasis supplied) Language of Section 11(3) of the Act is plain and simple and there is no ambiguity in it. A perusal of Section 11(3) shows that if the landlord is in bona fide need of the building for occupation by any members of the family dependent on him he may apply to the Rent Control Court for eviction of the tenant. Thus where eviction of a tenant is sought by a landlord for occupation of any member of his family, the landlord is required to plead and substantiate three ingredients. Firstly, a person for whose need the premises is required is a member of the landlords family. Secondly, such member of the family is dependent on the landlord and thirdly, there is a bona fide need. In the absence of any one of the three ingredients, the petition by a landlord under Section 11(3) would fail. In the present case, what we find is that, there was pleading to the effect that the building is needed for the married daughter and son-in-law. However, there is no pleading as regards the fact that the married daughter and the son-in-law are dependent on the landlady. The word "family" has not been defined in the Act. However, for the sake of argument we may assume that the married daughter and son-in-law are members of the landladys family. In that case the
