Back
Judges : S.SANKARASUBBAN,A.LEKSHMIKUTTY
A.Sulaikha Beevi - Appellant
Versus
K.C.Mathew and Others - Respondent
Case No : S.A. No. 88 of 1985(B)
Decided On : 12/21/2000
Advocates Appeared :
P. Sukumaran Nayar (Sr.), C. Unnikrishnan, P.V. Ramesh Shankar, G.P. Shinoo, S.V. Balakrishna Iyer, P. B. Krishnan
surrender - eviction - Kerala Land Reforms Act - Section 106
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for eviction of the defendants from the building and appurtenant ground, claiming that the defendants were continuing possession after the expiry of the lease period and were not entitled to the benefit of Section 106 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act.
Finding of the Court:
The trial Court decreed the suit for recovery of arrears of rent, but did not consider the question of eviction. The lower Appellate Court found the defendants entitled to the benefit of Section 106 and dismissed the appeal. The High Court modified the judgment, holding that the defendants were not entitled to fixity of tenure under Section 106 and remanded the case to the trial Court to decide the question of eviction.
Issues: The main issues were whether the defendants were entitled to the benefit of Section 106 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act and whether the plaintiff was entitled to eviction under the provisions of the Rent Control Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that a new lease arrangement came into force on 1-1-1962, and the defendants were not entitled to the benefit of Section 106 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The Court also remanded the case to the trial Court to decide the question of eviction.
Final Decision: The High Court modified the judgment, holding that the defendants were not entitled to fixity of tenure under Section 106 and remanded the case to the trial Court to decide the question of eviction.
SANKARASUBBAN, J.
Plaintiff is the appellant. Suit was filed for eviction of the defendants from the plaint schedule building and appurtenant ground and putting the plaintiff in possession thereof and for recovering an amount of Rs. 6,300/- with interest at 12% and for other reliefs.
2. Plaintiff is the daughter of late Janab Mohammad Sahib, Malika Veedu, Attakulangara, Thiruvananthapuram. According to the plaintiff, the first defendant, K. C. Mathew executed a rent deed on 1-1-1962 agreeing to take the building and the appurtenant ground as described in the plaint schedule on rent on the terms and conditions incorporated therein. As per the provisions of the rent deed, the first defendant was bound to pay a rent of Rs. 120/- per mensem up to 30-4-1962, Rs. 125/- per mensem till 30-4-1963, Rs. 130/- per mensem till 30-4-1964, Rs. 135/- per mensem till 30-4-1965 and Rs. 140/- per mensem till 30-4-1966. He had agreed that on the expiry of the terms on 30-4-1966, he will surrender the building and the appurtenant ground.
3. On the expiry of the period limited in the rent deed, the first defendant continued his possession of the building and appurtenant ground with the assent of the lessor, viz., the late Janab Mohammed Sahib, thereby giving rise to a renewal of the lease from month to month from May, 1966 the plaintiff's father and the first defendant agreed to have the rent fixed at Rs. 175/- per mensem and thereafter, the first defendant was paying the rent at that rate. The plaintiff's father died on 20th July, 1974. There was a suit for partition, as O.S. No. 177 of 1973 filed by the legal heirs of Janab Mohammed Sahib. As per the decree in that suit, the plaintiff was given absolute right over the plaint schedule property. After the decree, the plaintiff has been demanding the defendants to pay the rent to her from 1-5-1974. The rent for May, 1974 was payable before 10th June, 1974. The rent from 1-5-1974 at the rate of Rs. 175/- per mensem and interest due were recoverable by the plaintiff from the first defendant and his assets.
4. The plaintiff's son, Iqbal Ahammed has graduated in Medicine with M.B.B.S. degree and desires to start a dispensary in the plaint schedule building. He does not own any suitable building in Trivandrum or elsewhere and is dependent on the plaintiff for making accommodation for the said purpose. The plaintiff herself has no possession of any other building suitable to help her son. As the first defendant was continuing in the premises as a lessee from month to month since 30-4-1966 a notice to quit as required under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was issued to the first defendant terminating the lease with effect from 31-5-1976. Notwithstanding the same termination, as the first defendant did not vacate the premises and surrender possession of the building and appurtenant ground to the plaintiff, he moved an application before the Rent Control Court as O.P. (B.R.C.) No. 176 of 1976 for obtaining possession of the building and the premises. The application was filed under Sections 11(3) and 11(4)(iii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act.
5. Before the Rent Control Court, the defendants raised the contention that they are entitled to the benefit of Section 106 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The Rent Control Court found that this contention to be bona fide. Since it could not decide the question, the application was rejected giving liberty to the plaintiff to file suit. According to the first defendant, he is conducting timber business in the property. According to him, he has constructed a building therein. As the property was given on rent in 1120 M.E., the plaintiff submits that there is no fixity of tenure for the defendant. It is further submitted that the building was sub-let to the second defendant-Firm and the plaintiff needs the building bona fide for the purpose of her son to start a Nursing Home. Further, it was stated that the first defendant has got
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
