IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, JJ.
Tomy J. Cherkkott, S/o. Joseph & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
M.M. Abdul Sathar, S/o. Abdulla & Ors. - Respondents
OP (RC) Nos. 48, 54, 55, 56, 58, 60, 62, 63, 64, 65, 67, 70 of 2022
Decided On : 29-09-2022
Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 - Sections 11(4)(i), (8), 18 - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order VI Rule 17, Section 151 - Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 29(2), 5 - Landlords - Seeking Eviction - Petitions filed seeking eviction of respondents - Whether Rent Control Court exercising jurisdiction under the Act has jurisdiction to amend pleadings in Rent Control Petition on application of petitioners/landlords - There shall always be an inherent power to any Tribunal or court to make or allow such amendment in tune with cause of action. (Para 20)
Finding of the Court :
This Court in Faisal (Supra), it is clear that in absence of any express exclusion in Section 23 of Act, the Rent Control Court can exercise its inherent power to allow petition for amendment of pleadings - Section 23 does not bar the exercise of any other powers by Rent Control Court - Landlords have averred in Rent Control Petitions that in order to compete with other bar hotels, petitioners require Bar attached restaurants and other facilities for conducting business and they need ground floor of building - Court below has also found that need for petition schedule rooms for providing facilities in ground floor are already incorporated in Rent Control Petitions - Additional pleadings now sought to be amended are not contrary to facts narrated in petition - They are only supporting factors of petitioners - There is nothing wrong in allowing amendment now sought for - All facts are based on evidence and parties have all rights to contest case by adducing evidence - Court is of view that, orders impugned in these Original Petitions are liable to be set aside and Court accordingly do so.
Result : Petitions allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Shoba Annamma Eapen, J.
The common question involved in all these Original Petitions (Rent Control) is whether the Rent Control Court exercising jurisdiction under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has jurisdiction to amend the pleadings in the Rent Control Petition on the application of the petitioners/landlords.
2. With regard to the said question, we may refer to essential facts. We will refer to the parties according to their status in the Rent Control Petition.
3. The petitioners are the owners of the building wherein the petition scheduled shop rooms are situated. The Rent Control Petitions are filed seeking eviction of the respondents under Sections 11(4)(i) and 11(8) of the Act. The petitioners are the landlords and the respondents are the tenants.
4. The original petitions are filed against the orders dated 28.1.2022 in I.A.Nos.108/2020 in R.C.P.No.37/2018, 112/2020 in RCP No.41/2018, 109/2020 in R.C.P.No.40/2018, 113/2020 in R.C.P.No.42/2018, 111/2020 in RCP No.35/2018, 110/2020 in RCP No.44/2018, 105/2020 in RCP No.31/2018, 106/2020 in RCP No.34/2018, 115/2020 in RCP No.43/2018, 114/2020 in RCP No.38/2018, 107/2020 in RCP No.29/2018 and 96/2020 in RCP No.39/2018 on the files of the Rent Control Court (Munsiff), Payyannur filed by the landlords, for amendment of the Rent Control Petitions. The respondents are the tenants. The petitions were dismissed by the Rent Control Court as not maintainable. Aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioners have filed these original petitions. Since all these matters are interlinked and are of the same issue, we have heard the petitions together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
5. The petitioners/landlords are the absolute owners of 'Dwaraka Tourist Home' obtained by them as per Sale Deed No.3347 of 2012 of the S.R.O., Payyannur. The rooms in the building were let out to different tenants. The landlords were conducting bar attached hotel from 1982 in the building, when the ownership was in the hands of the previous owners. The running of bar attached hotel was continued by the landlords, after purchase of the property by them in the year 2012. During 2014, the Government of Kerala declared a new Abkari policy cancelling the licence of all bar hotels except the bar in five star hotels. The landlords had to stop the bar which was conducted in the portion of the building. Subsequently, in 2015, Government of Kerala amended the Abkari Policy and granted licence to the landlords to conduct wine and beer parlour in the portion possessed by the landlords. The Government again amended the policy restoring all the bars which situate 500 meters away from National Highways and State Highways which have three star classifications and facilities. There are other two bar hotels in Payyannur. In order to compete with them and to restore the three star classification, the petitioners have to provide more facilities such as separate vegetarian and non-vegetarian restaurants, separate lobbies on the ground floor and first floor, separate executive bar, coffee bar, gift shop, conference hall and several other modern facilities and bonafidely require the petition schedule rooms in the possession of the tenants and hence filed the Rent Control Petitions seeking eviction of the respondents under Section 11(4)(i) and 11(8) of the Act.
6. After filing of the Rent Control Petitions, the landlords got three star classification bar licence to the rooms in possession of the landlords. The learned counsel for the petitioners/landlords submits that though the landlords obtained three star classification bar licence, in order to compete with other bar hotels, the petitioners require bar attached restaurants and other facilities for conducting the business. To expand the business, the petitioners require restaurant, local bar, executive bar, banquet hall, reception etc, on the ground floor. Since, the three star classification bar l
Abdul Kareem v. Muhammed Shafi
Lalitha R. Prabhu v. Krishna alias Lakshmi Bai
M. Abdul Kareem v. P. Muhammed Shafi
Kooleri Padinjare Veettil Narayanan v. Nalupurappattil Tahira
Krishna Iyer T.V. v. Abdul Rasheed
Om Prakash Gupta v. Ranbir B. Goyal
Janaki Amma and another v. Bhaskaran Nambiar
Point of Law : Section 23(1)(j) speaks only about power to amend any defect or error in orders or proceedings. It is not meant for amendment of pleadings.
Power of RCC under 23(1)(j) of Act to amend any defect or error in orders or proceedings will include power to amend R.C.P.
Amendments to eviction petitions under rent control laws are permissible at any stage of proceedings when necessary to achieve justice.
Point of Law : Object of s. 38(1) is to give a right of appeal to a party aggrieved by some order which affects his right or liability.
Important points:No clear averments in the petition to the effect that the landlord is occupying a part of the building and the tenant is occupying the whole or any portion of the remaining part of t....
Landlords must prove bona fide need for eviction; tenants' failure to substantiate claims regarding income and available premises supports eviction orders under the Rent Control Act.
As per the first proviso to Section 11(1), nothing contained in this Section shall apply to a tenant whose landlord is State Government or Central Government or other public authority notified under ....
Point of Law - Appellate Authority held that the finding of the Rent Control Court that the rent agreed by the landlord and tenant is by mutual consent cannot be sustained
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.