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

2008 Supreme(Ker) 685

Judgename : P.R.RAMAN,T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Subramaniyan Pillai, Manager - Appellant
Versus
M.Shamsar Jihan, D/O.Mohammed Kunju - Respondents
Case No : R.C.R. NOS. 222, 223, 224 & 238 OF 2008
Decided On : 12/19/2008

Advocates Appeared:For the Petitioner:E.K. Nandakumar, Advocate. For The Respondents:R.D. Shenoy (Sr.), Advocate.

Headnote:

Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control Act) 1965 - Section 11(4)(iv) - Whether minute details of assets and finance of landlord has to be assessed to decide ability of reconstruction - What are the factors needed to satisfy condition of building for reconstruction - For non-examination of landlord, whether a petition for eviction on the ground of re-construction can be dismissed - Whether two petitions by two landlords for eviction for demolition and reconstructing a building with one roof of which separate portions are owned by them, can be tried jointly - Held, term 'tenant' as defined in S.2(6) takes in any person by whom or on whose account rent is payable and so it cannot be said that the firm is not a tenant. It was held that the Rent Control Petition is maintainable against a partnership without individual partners in the array of parties - Court do not find any reason to disagree with the finding so reached - Revision Dismissed.

Judgment :

Raman, J.

All these revision petitions are filed by the tenants occupying different shop rooms in a common structure belonging to the petitioners in the Rent Control Petition and thus, all the four revisions arises out of the same R.C.O.P. (27/1997) on the file of the Rent Control Court, Kollam. The Rent Control Court ordered eviction against which four appeals were preferred and by a common order, all the appeals were dismissed. Since there are four tenants, four revisions are filed before this Court. Thus, the subject matter of all the four revisions are the same and hence we heard all the four revisions together and dispose of by this common judgment.

2. As already stated, all these revisions arise from R.C.P. 27/1997. R.C.R. 222/2008 is filed by one Subramaniyan Pillai, who is the 11th respondent therein. R.C.R. 223/2008 is filed by George Abraham, who is the second counter petitioner in the above said case. The Revision petitioner in

R.C.R. 224/2008 is the first counter petitioner and the 8th counter petitioner in the above said Rent Control Petition is the revision petitioner in R.C.R. 238/2008.

3. Respondents 2 to 4 and 7 to 9 alone appealed against the order of eviction and only four of them have chosen to file revisions. The remaining parties have thus given up their claim and the order of eviction as against them has become final.

.4. Respondents 1 and 2 as landlords filed the rent control petition seeking eviction under Section 11 (4)(iv) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act on the material allegations as follows: They are sisters and represented by their mother and Power of Attorney Holder by virtue of the Power of Attorney dated 112.1979 and 17.3.1980 respectively. An extent of 21 cents of property with shop rooms bearing Nos. 8060 to 8070 (Re-survey No. 34/2, Block No. 180 measures 18,400 cents) of

.Kollam belonged to Umaiban Beevi, out of which northern 101/2 cents including shop room bearing Nos. 2552 to 1555 (new No. MC. 2008 to 2011) and the go down attached thereto was gifted to the first petitioner by virtue of gift deed No. 188/76 dated 27.1.1976 of SRO, Kollam, which are shown as plaint schedule items 1 to 4. The southern 101/2 cents with building bearing Nos. 1556 to 1561 (New No. MC. 2012 to 2015) and two go downs bearing Nos. 2017 and 2018 was gifted to the second petitioner by virtue of the same gift deed, which are plaint B schedule items 1 to 6. Petitioners are the absolute owners and landlords of the building. Petition A schedule Item No.1 bearing No. 2008 was leased out to the first counter petitioner on 3.1991 (petitioner in R.C.R. 224/2008) for conducting business in Khaja Beedi. Plaint A schedule item No.2 bearing No. 2009 and the godown bearing No. MC 2016 were leased out to P.V. Abraham on 3.1981 based on which a rent deed was executed and after his demise the tenancy right devolved upon counter petitioners 2 to 4 (Second counter petitioner is the revision petitioner in RCR 223/2008. Counter petitioners 3 and 4 are arrayed as Respondents 8 and 9 therein.) B schedule item No.1 bearing No. 2012 and the petition B schedule item No.6 go-down bearing No. 2018 was taken on lease by 8th counter petitioner (R.K. Hardwares, petitioner in RCR 238/2008) from the 2nd petitioner on 27.2.1981 on a monthly rent of Rs.250/-. Petition B schedule item No.4 bearing No. 2015 was taken on lease, as per a rent deed executed in favour of the second petitioner, by the 11th counter petitioner, which is a partnership firm represented by its managing partner Subramaniyan Pillai, who has filed RCR 222/2008. Petition schedule shop rooms and go-downs form part of a row of building facing the road on the eastern side and property on the southern side. They situate just on the western side of Hospital Chamakkada road in a most important business centre in Kollam town. There are other rows building on the same and opposite sides of the road including modern multi-storeyed building adjacent to the peti









































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

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