IMPORTANT POINT
Prohibition u/s 22(1) of SICA, 1985 is not applicable to eviction cases.
In absence of any pleading or evidence alleged financial crunch cannot be construed as reasonable cause.

Headnote:(a) Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 – Section 11(4)(v) – Initial burden to show that the tenant has ceased to occupy the building continuously for 6 months is always on the landlord – Once such evidence is adduced, the burden shifts on the tenant – Tenant cannot plead financial crunch as a ground to justify non occupation of the building – Merely putting lack and key does not prove occupancy – It relates to the purpose for which the premises was let out. (Para 18)
        (b) Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 – Section 11(4)(v) – Occupy – In absence of any tangible proof of occupation of the premises like electricity bills, attendance register/muster-rolls etc., court below rightly concluded that the appellant could not prove occupation of the premises during last six months – Eviction not improper. (Para 28)
        (2004) 3 SCC 684 – Relied upon
        (2006) 1 KLT 603; (2004) 3 KLT 169; (2004) 3 KLT 326; (2008) 2 KLJ 488 – Cited with approval
        (c) Code of Civil Procedure, 108 – Section 11 – Res judicata – Ground of eviction in the two sets of petitions were similar but the two petitions were based on different causes – Decision in first petition would not operate as res judicata for the subsequent petition. (Para 29)
        (d) Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 – Section 22(1) – Prohibition u/s 22(1) is not applicable to eviction cases. (Para 30)
        (1992) 3 SCC 1; (1999) 8 SCC 11; (2007) 8 SCC 559 – Relied upon
        (e) Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 – Section 11(4)(v) – In absence of any pleading or evidence alleged financial crunch cannot be construed as reasonable cause within the meaning of Section 11(4)(v). (Para 33)
       Facts of the case:
        This appeal pertains to an eviction suit.
       Finding of the Court:
        There is no infirmity in the impugned judgment.
       Result : Appeals dismissed.

JUDGMENT

G.S. Singhvi, J. —

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals are directed against judgment dated 27.7.2009 of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court whereby the revisions filed by the appellant against the order passed by District Judge, Ernakulam (hereinafter referred to as, “the Appellate Authority”) under Section 18 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short, “the 1965 Act”) were dismissed and the direction given by IIIrd Additional Munsiff and Rent Control Court, Ernakulam (for short, “the Rent Control Court”) for vacating the suit premises was confirmed.

3. A.B. Abdul Khader (predecessor of the respondents) leased out the suit premises comprised in Survey Nos.341/1 and 2 situated at Ernakulam village to the appellant for its godown and office for a period of 10 years with effect from 1.12.1966. After 2 years and about 2 months, the parties executed two lease deeds dated 3.2.1969, which were duly registered. For the sake of reference, the relevant portions of the lease deed executed in respect of Survey No.341/1 measuring 83 cents are extracted below:

“THIS DEED OF LEASE made on the Third day of February One Thousand Nine Hundred and Sixty Nine corresponding to the Fourteenth day of Magha One thousand Eight Hundred and Ninety One of the Sakha Era BETWEEN A.B. ABDUL KHADER son of Alumkaparambli Bava, Indian National, Businessman, aged Forty five years, residing at Alumkaparampil, Chittor Road, Ernakulam in the City of Cochin in Ernakulam District in Kerala State (hereinafter called “the Lessor” which expression shall unless excluded by or repugnant to the context include his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns) of the One Part AND DUNLOP INDIA LIMITED, formerly THE DUNLOP RUBBER COMPANY (INDIA) LIMITED, a Company duly incorporated in India having its Registered office at Dunlop House, 57-B Free School Street, Calcutta, herein represented by its duly constituted attorney G.S. Krishna son of Govindarajapuram Subramaniam, Indian National, Business, Executive, aged Forty four years, residing at 26, Dr. Hedge Road, Nangumbakkam in the City of Madras (hereinafter called “the Lessee” which expression shall unless excluded by or repugnant to the context include its successors and assigns) of the Other Part.

WITNESSES as follows:-

1. In consideration of the rent hereinafter reserved and of the covenants on the part of the Lessee hereinafter stipulated, the Lessor hereby demises unto the Lessee all those pieces of parcels of land situate in Ernakulam Town comprised in Survey Number 341 Sub Division 1 (part) admeasuring 83 cents equivalent to 33 acres 58.844 sq. meteres together with the buildings and structures erected thereon more particularly described in the Schedule hereunder written together with all the fixtures, fittings, pathways, passages, rights and privileges appurtenant thereto TO HOLD the same unto the Lessee for a term of ten years from 1st December 1966 paying therefore during the continuance of the lease a monthly rent of Rs.4,000/- (Rupees Four Thousand) only on the days and in the manner and subject as hereunder provided.

(a) xxx xxx xxx

(b) xxx xxx xxx

(c) The Lessee shall permit the Lessor or his authorised agents with or without workmen during business hours to enter upon the demised premises for the purpose of viewing the condition thereof and from time to time for the purpose of effecting the necessary repairs and maintenance as hereunder provided.

(d) The Lessee shall deliver up the said demised premises on termination of the lease in as good order and condition as they were in at the time when the lease hereby created commenced subject to determination due to normal wear and tear and defects, if any, for want of proper repair and maintenance which is the liability of the lessor as hereinafter mentioned.

2. The Lessor hereby covenants with the Lessee as follows:-

(a) Subject to the due observance and performance of the terms, covenants and conditions by the Lessee herein o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2011 Supreme(SC) 478

IMPORTANT POINT Prohibition u/s 22(1) of SICA, 1985 is not applicable to eviction cases. In absence of any pleading or evidence alleged financial crunch cannot be construed as reasonable cause.

Cases Referred (10)

IMPORTANT POINT
Prohibition u/s 22(1) of SICA, 1985 is not applicable to eviction cases.
In absence of any pleading or evidence alleged financial crunch cannot be construed as reasonable cause.