Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JJ.
Thankachan S/o Late Devassia @ Sebastian – Petitioner
Versus
V. Gireesh Kumar S/o Balan – Respondent
O.P. (RC) No. 91 of 2021
Decided On : 12-01-2022
Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 - Sections 11(1), 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(4)(i) - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 227 - Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 91 and 92 - Eviction order - Arrears of rent - Landlord-Tenant relationship - Maintainability of Rent Control Petition - Rent Control Court dismissed I.A. as per order - Aggrieved of said order, petitioner filed this Original Petition invoking supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of Constitution - Whether order of Rent Control Court requires interference - Whether there exists a landlord-tenant relationship, the bar under second proviso to Section 11(1) of Act gets attracted - Allegations and pleas about arrears of rent, subletting and respondent's need of building for his own occupation, set forth a contention land along with petition schedule building and its adjoining one acre of land originally belonged to his father and document was happened to be executed by his father just as a security. He contended that he did not execute any rent agreement, but it was fabricated by making use of blank signed stamp papers obtained from him. It is his contention that he happened to borrow money from one Sri. Shibin and as security to the said loan, document was happened to be executed by his father. Its subsequent conveyance deeds, including the one in favour of the respondent are sham documents. He never paid any rent to the respondent or anyone else.
Finding of the Court:
A person who is proceeded against as a tenant may have to raise a contention that there is no landlord-tenant relationship and that he is not a tenant. The landlord claiming eviction must have title to evict - In absence of denial of title or claim of permanent tenancy, the mere denial of landlord-tenant relationship would not oust jurisdiction of rent control court from entertaining rent control petition. In other words, denial of landlord-tenant relationship that arises out of denial of title of landlord or claim of permanent tenancy alone would fall under Section 11(1) of Act. It follows that except where there is real or constructive denial of title or claim of permanent tenancy resulting in cessation of jurisdiction, Rent Control Court necessarily has to consider on merits question, whether there is any landlord-tenant relationship - Exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India, High Court may not only quash or set aside impugned proceedings, judgment or order, but it may also make such directions as the facts and circumstances of case may warrant, may be, by way of guiding inferior court or tribunal as to manner in which it would now proceed further or afresh as commended to or guided by High Court - Provisions of Section 11 of Act is a bona-fide plea. Rent Control Court failed to consider materials on record in the proper perspective and findings in impugned order went wrong. Court view that I.A. in R.C.P. ought to have been allowed by Rent Control Court - Therefore it is well within the powers of this Court to pass appropriate orders regarding disposal of the I.A. as well as R.C.P.
Result: Original Petition is allowed.
JUDGMENT :
P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.
1. The respondent filed R.C.P. No. 32 of 2019 before the Rent Control Court (Munsiff), Sulthanbathery for eviction of the petitioner-tenant under Sections 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(4)(i) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The petitioner filed a counter statement denying the respondent's title to the petition schedule building and also the landlord-tenant relationship. He filed I.A. No. 1 of 2020 in the R.C.P. seeking to decide the maintainability of the Rent Control Petition. The respondent filed a counter statement. The Rent Control Court after hearing both sides, dismissed I.A. No. 1 of 2020 as per order dated 23.02.2021. Feeling aggrieved of the said order, the petitioner filed this Original Petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
2. The case of the respondent is that he purchased the landed property having an extent of 27.33 ares along with the petition schedule building by virtue of Sale-Deed No. 749 of 2018. The petitioner was residing in the said building as a tenant on the basis of a lease agreement dated 15.10.2008. He has been holding over the tenancy and the rate of rent is Rs. 1,000/- per month. Rent since February 2018 has been in arrears. The petitioner sublet the building to three persons, namely: Smt. Mary Sebastian, Sri. Babychan and Smt. Rany Mol and they are in occupation of a portion of the building. The respondent requires the building for his residence. On the said grounds, eviction was sought.
3. The petitioner apart from denying the allegations and pleas about arrears of rent, subletting and respondent's need of the building for his own occupation, set forth a contention that 27.33 ares of land along with the petition schedule building and its adjoining one acre of land originally belonged to his father and Document No. 4710 of 2008 was happened to be executed by his father just as a security. He contended that he did not execute any rent agreement, but it was fabricated by making use of blank signed stamp papers obtained from him. It is his contention that he happened to borrow money from one Sri. Shibin and as security to the said loan, Document No. 4710 of 2008 was happened to be executed by his father. Its subsequent conveyance deeds, including the one in favour of the respondent are sham documents. He never paid any rent to the respondent or anyone else. There were criminal cases with regard to the transactions referred to above. On the said grounds, the petitioner challenged the maintainability of the R.C.P.
4. Setting forth those contentions, the petitioner had filed I.A. No. 1 of 2020. In the counter statement filed by the respondent in I.A. No. 1 of 2020, he denied the allegations about validity of Document No. 4710 of 2008 in favour of Sri. Shibin and its subsequent conveyance deeds. He also reiterated that the rent agreement was validly executed by the petitioner and there exists a landlord-tenant relationship.
5. The Rent Control Court, after considering Exts.A1 to A8 and B1 to B9(b) and also hearing both sides, dismissed I.A. No. 1 of 2020. The Rent Control Court found that title of the respondent was established from the documents, particularly, Exts.B2 to B8 produced before that court, and therefore, the denial of respondent's title made by the petitioner was without any bona-fides.
6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
7. The point arises for consideration is whether the order of the Rent Control Court dated 23.02.2021 in I.A. No. 1 of 2020 in R.C.P. No. 32 of 2019 requires interference.
8. Building bearing door No. XIII/195 of Noolpuzha Panchayat (new number 16/146) is the subject matter in R.C.P. No. 32 of 2019. Ext.P9 is a copy of the rent control petition. Ext.P10 is the counter statement filed in that petition by the petitioner herein. It is beyond dispute that the said building originally belonged
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
