Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 31925
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, C.S. Sudha, JJ
ABDUL AZEEZ
– Appellant
Versus
Alimuhammed – Respondent
RCRev. 57 2022
HASHIM V.H.P.M.ABDUL JALEEL (KODUNGALLUR) T.V.SHAJI, K.M.ABDUL KADER A.S.SREEJAN
A landlord's obligation to reconstruct after tenant eviction is binding on subsequent property owners, ensuring tenants' rights to re-induction remain in effect.
Headnote:
Eviction - Tenant Rights - Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 - Sections 11(3), 11(4)(iv), 20 - The tenant was entitled to re-induction in the reconstructed building as the landlord's obligation under Section 11(4)(iv) runs with the property, engaging the subsequent purchaser.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner-tenant, after being evicted for reconstruction, filed an application requesting to reconstruct the premises and adjust costs in subsequent rent. The landlord delayed reconstruction and transferred property rights to a third party, resulting in the tenant seeking re-induction rights.
Issues: Whether the tenant was entitled to re-induction in the reconstructed premises even after a significant delay and the sale of property to a third party.
Ratio Decidendi: The obligation to reconstruct, as mandated by Section 11(4)(iv), persists through property transfers. Tenants retain the right to be reinstated in vacated premises upon compliance with statutory requirements.
Final Decision: The tenant's request for re-induction is granted with the obligation to pay fair rent.
ORDER
Anil K. Narendran, J.
The petitioner is the respondent-tenant in R.C.P.No.8 of 2001 on the file of the Rent Control Court (Munsiff), Kodungallur, a petition filed by the 1st respondent herein-landlord, under Sections 11 (3) and 11(4)(iv) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 , seeking an order of eviction of the tenant from the petition schedule shop room. The 1st respondent-landlord has also filed R.C.P.Nos.2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11 and 12 of 2001 against the tenants in the adjacent shop rooms. During the pendency of these Rent Control Petitions, a compromise petition was filed in R.C.P.No.8 of 2001 and connected matters. The Rent Control Court, by the order dated 19.03.2004, disposed of R.C.P.No.8 of 2001 and connected matters in terms of that compromise. Accordingly, the petitioner-tenant and others gave vacant possession of the shop rooms to the 1st respondent-landlord for reconstruction. As per that compromise, the landlord has to complete the reconstruction of the building within ten months from 19.08.2004 and allot one room each to the respective tenants.
2. The tenant in R.C.P.No.8 of 2001 filed I.A.No.1213 of
2013, invoking the provisions under the second proviso to Section 11 (4)(iv) of the Act, seeking permission to reconstruct the tenanted premises and permit him to adjust the cost of construction in the rent which accrues later. On receipt of notice in I.A.No.1213 of 2013, the 1st respondent-landlord entered appearance and filed counter, contending that the tenant is not legally entitled to such a relief on account of the delay of 9 years in filing the application. The landlord has also raised a contention that, due to financial problem, he assigned the property in question to a third party. In view of the said contention, the subsequent purchaser was impleaded as the 2nd respondent in I.A.No.1213 of 2013, who has also filed counter in the said interlocutory application.
3. The Rent Control Court, after considering the rival contentions, dismissed I.A.No.1213 of 2013 in R.C.P.No.8 of 2001, by the order dated 27.03.2017. Feeling aggrieved, the tenant filed R.C.A.No.110 of 2017 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Additional District Judge), Irinjalakkuda. That appeal ended in dismissal by the judgment dated 19.02.2020. Challenging the order dated 27.03.2017 of the Rent Control Court in I.A.No.1213 of 2013 in R.C.P.No.8 of 2001 and also the judgment dated
19.02.2020 of the Rent Control Appellate Authority in R.C.A.No.110 of 2017, the petitioner-tenant is before this Court in this Rent Control Revision, invoking the provisions under Section
20 of the Act.
4. On 30.03.2022, when this Rent Control Revision came up for admission, this Court issued notice on admission to the respondents.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent-landlord and also the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-subsequent purchaser.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the reasoning of the authorities below, while rejecting the request for re-induction sought for in I.A.No.1213 of 2013 in R.C.P.No.8 of 2001 is perverse and patently illegal, which warrants interference by this Court, in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Act. In view of the provisions under the second proviso to Section 11 (4)(iv) of the Act, the landlord has got the statutory obligation to re-induct the tenant in the reconstructed building. Such an obligation of the landlord goes along with the property, on subsequent transfer of the property to a third party.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent-
landlord and also the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent- subsequent purchaser would contend that I.A.No.1213 of 2013 in R.C.P.No.8 of 2001 filed by the tenant before the Rent Control Court, invoking the provisions under the second proviso to Section 11 (4)(iv) of the Act, after long lapse of 9 years from the order of eviction
