Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 31693
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
N.ANIL KUMAR, J
PARAMESWARAN .V – Appellant
Versus
SULAIKHA – Respondent
RSA/660/2021
SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI (SR.), SRI.M.A.AUGUSTINE, SMT.S.AMBILY, MICKY THOMAS, SRI.A.R.NIMOD, SRI.ALEX.M.SCARIA
The Rent Control Act's application persists despite territorial redefinitions, affirming the law’s enduring validity within specified geographic boundaries.
Headnote:
Rent - Recovery of Possession - Act 2 of 1965 - The court ruled that the application of the Rent Control Act remains valid despite territorial delimitation under Panchayat laws, allowing the plaintiffs to seek eviction via the Act instead of civil suits.
Fact of the Case:
Suits for recovery of possession were filed by plaintiffs in a village jurisdiction, following the territorial changes due to Panchayat law modifications. Defendants challenged the jurisdiction of the Act applied in their case after area transfer to a new Panchayat.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that existing provisions of the Rent Control Act applied to the transferred area remained effective, negating both lower court decisions that ruled otherwise. It emphasized that the Act's applicability isn't affected by subsequent territorial delimitations.
Issues: The core issue revolved around whether the Rent Control Act continued to apply to a newly designated area despite changes in Panchayat jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that once the Rent Control Act applies to an area, its efficacy does not diminish due to subsequent territorial modifications unless expressly defined within the Act.
Final Decision: All appeals are allowed, setting aside previous judgments; eviction must proceed under the Rent Control Act provisions.
JUDGMENT
Common questions of law and facts arise in these appeals and, therefore, I think, it is just and proper to dispose of all these appeals jointly.
2. Suits were filed for recovery of possession from the defendants in O.S.Nos.241/2017, 239/2017, 240/2017 and 236/2017 of the Munsiff's Court, Kalpetta (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') respectively. The learned Munsiff conducted separate trial and decreed the suits granting recovery of possession. Challenging the judgments and decrees, the defendant in O.S.No.241/2017 filed A.S.No.8/2020, the defendant in O.S.No.239/2017 filed A.S.No.6/2020, the defendant in O.S.No.240/2017 filed A.S.No.7/2020 and the defendant in O.S.No.236/2017 filed A.S.No.9/2020 before the Sub Court, Sulthanbathery (hereinafter referred to as 'the first appellate court'). All the appeals were dismissed by way of separate judgments and decrees. Hence the defendants in all the above cases filed separate appeals before this Court as R.S.A.Nos.634/2021, 660/2021, 661/2021 and
667/2021 respectively.
3. The subject matter of the suits is situated within the jurisdiction of Muppainad Village, Vythiri Taluk which is coming under the Muppainad Panchayat area. The Muppainad Village was earlier included within the area of Meppadi Panchayat. The provisions of the Rent Control Act was made applicable to the Meppadi Grama Panchayat area. Later, the area, where the plaint schedule property is situate, is transferred to the Muppainad Panchayat, whereby the said area included within the area of Muppainad Panchayat. It is a fact that, even after transfer of the above area to the Muppainad Panchayat, the property continued to be in the same Village where the provisions of the are made applicable.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants Sri.K.K.Chandran Pillai in R.S.A.No.634/2021, Sri.M.A.Augustine in R.S.A.Nos.660/2021, 661/2021 & 667/2021 and Sri.Alex M.Scaria, the learned counsel for the respondents (Caveator).
5. The learned counsel for the appellants submit that once provisions of the Rent Control Act is extended to an area, it operates applying to that geographical limit. It is further submitted that the application of the law so extended to a particular geographical limit does not loose its efficacy, co-terminus with any modification of the notification regarding that particular territory under the Panchayats Act or any other Municipal law which may provide for a delimitation exercise for the purpose of that Act. Elaborating on the submission, it is argued that the Act 2 of 1965 having been applied to earlier Meppadi Panchayat including Muppainad Village, any further delimitation exercise does not modify the effect of the application of the to the said area. Thus, it is argued that a civil suit for eviction of the defendants is unsustainable and the plaintiff ought to have filed petitions for eviction under the Act 2 of 1965.
6. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant Sri.K.K.Chandran Pillai in R.S.A.No.634/2021 placed strong reliance on Meenakshy v. Ananthambal [ 2015 (1) KLT 384 ] and contended that what are the boundaries and limits of a particular geographical territory as per the scheme of the Act 2 of 1965 is essentially a question of fact. The learned Senior Counsel placed reliance on paragraph 6 of the case (supra). It reads as follows:-
“6. When the 1965 Rent Act was brought into force, the Kerala Panchayats Act, 1960, hereinafter referred to as the “1960 Panchayats Act”, was in force. Nenmara Panchayat had Nenmara, Ayiloor and Nelliyampathy Villages. Going by its definition in Section 2(21) of the 1960 Panchayats Act, 'Panchayat area' means any local area declared as such by the Government or such other authority as may be authorised by the Government for the purposes of that Act. The provision in the 1960 Panchayats Act relating to repeal shows that the fact situation available as on the date of that Act would be modified only if there is any subsequent action by the Governm
