Back
2025 Supreme(Ker) 792
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
M.A. Abdul Hakhim, J.
Hindu Mahasabha Foundation (Trust) – Petitioner
Versus
Manjula - Respondent
EX.SA No. 4 of 2025
Decided On : 21-03-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : BY ADV ANUPAMA SUBRAMANIAN
IMPORTANT POINT
The absence of evidence to substantiate a claim of tenancy leads to dismissal of eviction proceedings, emphasizing the necessity of proper documentation and evidentiary support.
Headnote:
(A) Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 - Eviction proceedings - The landlords sought eviction of the tenant based on a prior order, which was contested by the appellant claiming tenancy through an oral lease agreement - The courts found no evidence supporting the appellant's claim of tenancy. (Paras 2 , 7 , 11 , 13 )
(B) Evidence - The court emphasized that mere production of documents is insufficient; proper marking and evidence submission are required for consideration. (Paras 10 , 11 )
Facts of the case:
The appellant, a Trust, claimed tenancy of a residential building based on an oral agreement, while the landlords contended that the building was leased to a different entity. The eviction order was executed against the original tenant.
Findings of Court:
The courts found no evidence to substantiate the appellant's claim of tenancy, leading to the dismissal of the claim petition.
Issues: The main issues included the validity of the appellant's claim of tenancy and the sufficiency of evidence presented.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that without proper evidence and documentation, the claim of tenancy could not be upheld, reaffirming the necessity of evidentiary support in tenancy disputes.
Result: Execution Second Appeal is dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM, J.
1.This Execution Second Appeal arises from a Claim Petition filed by the Appellant/Trust and the 4th respondent Trustee under Order 21 Rule 97 C.P.C. The respondents 1 and 2 are the landlords with respect to the residential house bearing Building No.4/185.
2.According to the respondents 1 and 2, it was leased to the 3rd respondent/Akhila Bharata Hindu Mahasabha. The respondents 1 and 2 filed R.C.P. No.12/2022, seeking eviction of the 3rd respondent from the premises under the provisions of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, a residential house bearing Building No.4/185. Eviction of the 3rd respondent was ordered by the Rent Control Court as per Order dated 22.07.2023.
3.The respondents 1 and 2 filed E.P. No.741 of 2024 in R.C.P. No.12/2022 to execute the order of eviction against the 3rd respondent.
4.The appellant and 4th respondent/Trustee filed E.A. No.3070/2024 in E.P. No.741 of 2024 to dismiss the Execution Petition on the ground that it is the first applicant who is the tenant of the petition schedule building based on an oral lease agreement with the respondents 1 and 2 on 07.08.2020.
5. Going by the allegations in EA No. 3070/2024, the petitioners entered into an oral lease agreement with the 1st and 2nd respondents for occupying the petition schedule building from 07.08.2020 fixing the monthly rent @ of Rs. 15,000/-, an advance amount of Rs. 50,000/- was also given to the respondents 1 and 2 and electricity charges was also agreed to be paid by the petitioners, the petitioners have been giving monthly rent to the respondents 1 and 2, but without impleading the petitioners, the respondents 1 and 2 obtained an eviction order against the 3rd respondent and on the strength of the said order, the respondents 1 and 2 is attempting to evict the petitioners from the petition schedule building.
6.The Petition was opposed by respondents 1 and 2 by filing an objection contending inter alia that the Petitioners are not the tenants of the petition schedule building. There is no oral or written lease agreement between the petitioners and respondents 1 and 2. The respondents 1 and 2 are not aware of the petitioners. The respondents 1 and 2 rented out the petition schedule building to Akhila Hindu Maha Sabha/3rd respondent and the 3rd respondent defaulted the monthly rent and when the rent was demanded, the 3rd respondent filed O.S.No.2654/2019 before the Munsiff’s Court, Thrissur for getting an order against forceful eviction by the respondents 1 and 2. The 3rd respondent contested the suit till 2024 and when the case was listed for evidence on 10.09.2024, the suit was not pressed. The 3rd respondent remained ex parte in R.C.P.No.12/2022, but the delivery was resisted with his henchmen. Now, at the instance of the 3rd respondent, the present claimant has filed the petition.
7.The Trial Court dismissed the Claim petition, finding that the petitioners did not produce any document to substantiate the contention that the petitioners are the tenants of respondents 1 and 2. On filing the appeal before the First Appellate Court by the petitioners, the same was dismissed confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court.
8. I heard the learned counsel for the appellant Adv.Sri.Anupama Subramanian and the learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 who appeared and opposed the admission.
9. The learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 submitted that pursuant to the order of eviction in R.C.P. No.12/2022, the delivery of the petition schedule property was effected on 19.03.2025, and hence the appeal has become infructuous. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the appellant pressed for consideration of the appeal on the ground that there is illegality in the orders passed by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court, and if the said orders are set aside, the appellant is entitled to get restitution.
10. The learned counsel for the appellant’s advanced contentions are with re
