Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Anil K. Narendran, P.G. Ajithkumar, JJ.
Haridasan and Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
Chandran and Ors. – Respondents
R.C.Rev.No.116 of 2020
Decided On : 28-10-2021
Rent Control Revision - Tenants - Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 - Section 11(4)(iv), Section 20 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Section 11 of the Act deals with eviction of tenants. Section 11(4)(iv) deals with eviction on the ground of reconstruction. The third proviso to Section 11(4)(iv) provides the tenant who was evicted shall have the first option to have the reconstructed building allotted to him with liability to pay its fair rent. The court discussed the interpretation and application of these provisions in the context of the tenants' claim for re-induction into the reconstructed building owned by the landlords. The court also referred to relevant case laws to support its interpretation of the legal provisions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners-tenants were evicted from the premises due to heavy rain causing cracks in the building. They sought re-induction into the reconstructed building owned by the landlords under the third proviso to Section 11(4)(iv) of the Act. The Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority dismissed their claims, leading to the Rent Control Revision before the court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners-tenants were not entitled to the relief sought under the third proviso to Section 11(4)(iv) of the Act as they were evicted from the tenanted premises in a proceeding under Section 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and not under an order passed under Section 11(4)(iv) of the Act. The court upheld the decisions of the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority, concluding that the Rent Control Revision failed and dismissing the same.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioners-tenants were entitled to re-induction into the reconstructed building under the third proviso to Section 11(4)(iv) of the Act, considering the circumstances of their eviction and the legal interpretation of the relevant provisions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the third proviso to Section 11(4)(iv) of the Act, which requires the tenant to have been evicted under an order passed under Section 11(4)(iv) and the building to have been reconstructed by the landlord. The court also relied on relevant case laws to support its interpretation of the legal provisions.
Final Decision: The Rent Control Revision failed, and the court dismissed the same, upholding the decisions of the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority.
The rights of a tenant under the relevant law, as clarified in the provided document, include the following:
Right to be re-inducted into a reconstructed building: A tenant who was evicted under an order passed specifically under Section 11(4)(iv) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, has the right of first option to be re-inducted into the reconstructed building, subject to paying a fair rent. This right is only available if the eviction was carried out through a proper legal order under this section (!) (!) .
Protection against eviction: The law stipulates that a tenant cannot be evicted except in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Eviction proceedings must follow the prescribed legal procedures, and any eviction outside these procedures, such as through proceedings under other laws or unauthorized actions, do not grant the tenant the same rights to re-induction under the Act (!) (!) .
Rights in case of building reconstruction: If a building is reconstructed after eviction, tenants who were evicted under the proper legal process have the right to be considered for re-induction, provided the eviction was under the specific provisions of the Act and the building was reconstructed accordingly (!) (!) .
Limitations on rights: Tenants evicted through proceedings under laws other than Section 11(4)(iv), such as proceedings under the Criminal Procedure Code or other municipal laws, do not qualify for the right of re-induction under the third proviso of Section 11(4)(iv). Their rights are governed by the respective laws under which they were evicted, and the law emphasizes that the right to re-induction is strictly limited to those evictions carried out under the specific section mentioned (!) (!) .
No automatic right for tenants evicted in other circumstances: If a tenant was evicted due to reasons other than a proper eviction order under Section 11(4)(iv), such as demolition under public interest or other legal proceedings, they do not have the right to claim re-induction into the reconstructed building (!) .
In summary, tenants have a protected right to re-enter and occupy reconstructed buildings only if they were evicted following a proper legal process under the specific provisions of the Kerala Rent Control Act, particularly Section 11(4)(iv). If evicted through other legal or procedural avenues, their rights to re-induction are not recognized under this specific provision.
ORDER :
Anil K. Narendran, J.
The petitioners-tenants filed R.C.P.No.86 of 2014 on the file of the Rent Control Court (Munsiff) Vatakara, invoking the 3rd proviso to Section 11(4)(iv) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 to re-induct them into the reconstructed building owned by the respondents-landlords herein. That petition ended in dismissal by the order dated 04.02.2017 of the Rent Control Court. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners-tenants filed R.C.A.No.86 of 2017 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Additional District Judge), Vatakara under Section 18(1)(b) of the Act, which also ended in dismissal, thereby confirming the order passed by the Rent Control Court in R.C.P.No.86 of 2014. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 04.02.2017 of the Rent Control Court in R.C.P.No.86 of 2014 and also the judgment of the Appellate Authority dated 24.06.2019 in R.C.A No.86 of 2017, the petitioners are before this Court in this Rent Control Revision, invoking the revisional jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Act.
2. On 23.07.2021, when this Rent Control Revision came up for admission, this Court issued urgent notice on admission by speed post to the respondents-landlords, returnable within three weeks.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the learned counsel for the respondents.
4. The issue that arises for consideration in this Rent Control Revision is as to whether any interference is warranted in the order of the Rent Control Court dated 04.02.2017 in R.C.P.No.86 of 2014 and the judgment of the Appellate Authority dated 24.06.2019 in R.C.A.No.86 of 2017, invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 20 of the Act.
5. The pleadings and materials on record would show that the petitioners were tenants of a building owned by the respondents. In the year 2013, due to heavy rain, cracks were developed in the building on its southern wall. Consequently, they were evicted from the premises based on the orders of the Tahasildar and the building was also pulled down by the Tahsildar using earth mover. According to the petitioners they have sent notice to the respondents to reconstruct the building within six months. On receipt of such notice, the respondents approached them and assured that reconstruction of the building can be carried out at the earliest and that, they will be allotted rooms in the reconstructed building for conducting their business. On the respondents completing the reconstruction of the 1st floor, the petitioners approached them. However, the respondents refused to re-induct them, as promised. In such circumstances, the petitioners filed R.C.P.No.86 of 2014 before the Rent Control Court, invoking the 3rd proviso to Section 11(4)(iv) of the Act seeking re-induction.
6. The Rent Control Court as well as the Appellate Authority concurrently found that since the eviction of the petitioners from the tenanted premises was not based on an order of eviction passed in a petition filed by the respondents herein under Section 11(4)(iv) of the Act, the 3rd proviso to Section 11(4)(iv) has no application and as such they are not entitled for the relief sought for in R.C.P.No.86 of 2014.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners-tenants would contend that the 3rd proviso to Section 11(4)(iv) of the Act has application, even in a case in which the tenants are not evicted from the tenanted premises based on an order of eviction passed under Section 11(4)(iv) of the Act. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents-landlords would contend that the benefit of the 3rd proviso to Section 11(4)(iv) of the Act can be claimed only by those tenants who have been evicted from the tenanted premises based on an order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court under Section 11(4)(iv) of the Act.
8. Section 11 of the Act deals with eviction of tenants. As per Section 11(1), notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract a tenant shall not be evict
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
