Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 21947
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A. K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., JJ
ASHOKAN – Appellant
Versus
SHEMEERA – Respondent
RCRev. 130 2023
DINESH MATHEW, J. MURICKEN, VINOD S. PILLAI, MOHAMMED THAYIB, N.M. NAYANA VARGHESE, AHAMMAD, SACHIN K.K., S. SANGEETHA (KOOMBEL), RIA VARGHESE
The judgment clarified that a statutory notice of default under the Rent Control Act substantiates eviction orders despite tenant claims against landlord's title.
Headnote:
Eviction - Rent Control - Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1965 Sections 11(2)(b) - The court affirmed the order of eviction based on established landlord-tenant relationship and tenant's failure to pay rent as prescribed under the Act.
Fact of the Case:
The tenant contested eviction based on alleged non-existence of landlord-tenant relationship and claimed payment issues, while the landlords sought eviction for unpaid rent over several years.
Finding of the Court:
The court concluded that the tenant's arguments against the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship lacked merit, as well as the claim of non-payment of rent was unsubstantiated.
Issues: The main issues involved whether a valid landlord-tenant relationship existed and if the tenant had any valid defense against the landlord's claim for rent arrears.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that the denial of title from the tenant was not bona fide and recognized the legitimacy of the landlords' claims supported by statutory notice provisions.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed due to lack of merit.
ORDER
Mohammed Nias. C.P. J.
The revision petitioner/ the tenant in RCP No.10 of 2006 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Thrissur, has filed this revision petition aggrieved by the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority II, Thrissur affirming the orders of eviction passed under Section 11 (2)(b) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by its order dated 26.11.2021.
2. The respondents/landlords filed the Rent Control Petition contending that the tenant is liable to pay an amount Rs. 67,800/- towards the rent for the period from January 1992 to October 2013, along with interest, which amounts to Rs.1,44,753/-. It is alleged that the tenant was put in possession of the property by the predecessors of the landlords for the year 1961 for a rent of Rs.15/-, which was later enhanced to Rs.300/- per month in the month of January 1995 and the respondent paid the rent till January 1995. It is further stated that the petition schedule property originally belonged to one Veeravu, who transferred the same to his wife Ayisha, who in turn transferred the property to the first respondent landlord as per a sale deed of the year 1994 and in the year 2001, the first petitioner had settled half of her share in favour of the second petitioner.
3. The tenant resisted the petition contending that the petition is not maintainable and the petitioner has no locus standi to institute the proceedings and that Veeravu did not have right to transfer the property in favour of his wife and the petitioners have not obtained any title in the petition schedule property and therefore there exists no landlord-tenant relationship between the parties and consequently no claim for arrears of rent will lie. It was also contented by the tenant that he has spent a substantial amount of Rs.2,00,300/- for making the building habitable and that there was a sale agreement between his father Subramanian and Veeravu and an advance of Rs.1,00,000/- was given towards the sale consideration. As Veeravu died, the sale deed could not be executed. The tenant further contends that after the death of Veeravu, none of the legal heirs had approached him for rent. It is also his argument that the documents relied on by the landlords are fabricated.
4. Before the trial court, the petitioner was examined as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A10 were marked on the side of the petitioners and RW1 was examined and Exts.B1 to B11 were marked on the side of the respondent.
5. The rent control court, after analyzing the pleadings and evidence on record, allowed the petition under Section 111(2)(b) of the Act.
6. The tenant filed an appeal reiterating the contentions taken by them before the trial court.
7. The appellate court considered whether the denial of title of the petitioner by the respondent was bonafide as it affects the maintainability of the rent control petition. It found that even going by the case of the tenant, Veeravu had title to the property, as otherwise his father could not have entered into a sale agreement with the said person. If that be so, the transfer by Veeravu to the present landlords cannot be disputed by the tenant. It is also relevant to note that the tenant has admitted that his father has taken the petition schedule property from Veeravu on rent, which makes him a tenant of the petition schedule property. In the appellate Court, contending that the tenant's father Subramanian had other legal heirs also IA 6 of 2023 was filed by the other children seeking impleadment. The appellate court rightly rejected the application finding that the eviction petition against one of the joint tenants is sufficient and all joint tenants are bound by the order of the Rent Controller as the joint tenancy is one tenancy and is not a tenancy split into different legal heirs. The appellate court for arriving at the said conclusion relied on the judgment inSureshkumar Kohli v. Rakesh Jain and another [ 2018 (6) SCC 708 ] . Thus, it
