SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2013 Supreme(SC) 282

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.S. Chauhan, Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, JJ.
MADHAVI AMMA & ORS. - Appellants
VERSUS
S. PRASANNAKUMARI & ORS. - Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2735-2736 OF 2005
Decided on : 22-3-2013

IMPORTANT POINT
Scope of section 80 and 80B of Kerala Rent Control Act, 1963.

Headnote:(a) Kerala Rent Control Act, 1963 - Section 125 - Status of a Kudikidappukaran or a tenant can be decided only by a Land Tribunal - Civil Court has to accept the same - Its correctness or otherwise can be examined by Appellate Civil Court/ Rent Court if the Civil Court/ Rent Court decision is taken in appeal. (Para 14)

        (b) Section 80 and 80B - Claim of a status of a Kudikidappukaran can be determined only under Section 80 - Section 80B can be invoked only by a person whose claim of status of a Kudikidappukaran has been determined in his favour - Appellant’s claim having been rejected in reference u/s 125, provision of S. 80B not available - Appellate Authority’s decision without jurisdiction and not in tune with its powers u/s 102. (Para 21)

       Facts of the case:

        In this appeal common judgment of the High Court in two cases is under challenge.

        In CRP No.1411/1996 (C) the Rent controller had ordered eviction which was affirmed by the Appellate Authority. The High Court confirmed the eviction order.

        In CRP No.833/1996(H) the order of the Land Tribunal was reversed by the Appellate Tribunal. The High Court set aside the order of the Appellate authority.

       Finding of the Court:

        There is no infirmity in the impugned judgment.

       Result : Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.

1. These appeals are directed against the common judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam dated 18.12.2002 passed in CRP No.1411/1996 (C) and CRP No.833/1996(H). CRP No.1411/1996 (C) was preferred by one Appukuttan Nair along with the appellant (s) herein challenging the decision of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thiruvananthapuram dated 28.10.1995 in RCA No.133/1991 by which the eviction ordered by the Rent Control Court in its order dated 02.7.1991 in RCP No.140/1985 was confirmed. CRP. No.833 of 1996 (H) was preferred by the respondents herein challenging the order of the Appellate Authority (LR), Attingal in AA No.37/91 dated 13.11.1995 by which the order of the Land Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram dated 19.02.1991 in OA No.78/1988 filed by the predecessor of the appellant (s), namely, Appukkuttan Nair under Section 80B of the Kerala Land Reforms Act for the purchase of his Kudikidappu right in respect of survey No.1536/A of Vanchiyoor Village, Thiruvananthapuram Taluk was reversed.

2. By the common order of the Division Bench, the eviction ordered by the Authorities under the Kerala Rent Control Act, 1963 and Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 was confirmed and the order of the appellate authority dated 13.11.1995 in AA 37/1991 was set aside.

3. To trace the brief facts, the respondents landlord filed RCP No. 140/85 for eviction of the tenant, sub-tenant and other occupants under the provisions of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 hereinafter called ‘the 1965 Act’. When that eviction petition was pending, at the instance of one of the tenants, who was predecessor of the appellant (s) herein filed a petition under Section 125 (3) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 hereinafter called ‘the 1963 Act’ by which the predecessor of the appellant (s) claimed rights as a Kudikidappukaran. The learned Rent Controller referred the issue as to whether such a claim made by the tenant was admissible, to the Land Tribunal, having jurisdiction over the area in which the land situated together with the relevant records for the decision on that question.

4. Be that as it may, the tenant also filed an application under Section 80B of the 1963 Act for purchase of Kudikidappu under his occupation of the lands before the Land Tribunal. By independent orders dated 19.2.1991, the Land Tribunal returned a finding in the Reference made by the learned Rent Control Authority to the effect that the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant (s) did not possess any Kudikidappu rights. In the application filed under Section 80B of the Act also such a claim came to the rejected. Having regard to the provisions contained in Section 125 (5) of the 1963 Act, the Rent Control proceedings in RCP 140/85 was determined holding that the tenant’s right as a Kudikidappukaran was not maintainable and thereafter the eviction petition was also ordered on merits in favour of

the respondent-landlord herein.

5. On the side of the appellant (s), a separate appeal was preferred in AA 37/91 as against the rejection of the application under section 80B of the 1963 Act which came to be allowed by the Appellate Authority by its order dated 13.11.1995. As against the order of the Rent Control Authority in RCP No.140/85 dated 2.7.1991 on behalf of the appellant(s), an appeal was also preferred in RCA No.133/1991 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority. The said appeal was dismissed by order dated 28.10.1995.

6. It is in the above stated background, the Division Bench of the High Court passed the impugned order confirming the order of eviction as against the appellant (s) and also setting aside the order of the appellate authority dated 13.11.95 in AA 37 of 1991 passed under the provisions of 1963 Act.

7. We heard Mr. Romy Chacko, Advocate for the appellant(s) and Sri Balakrishnan, learned senior counsel for the respondents. The learned counsel for the appellant(s



























































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top