Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KER) 5996
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
C.S. DIAS, J
HAFSA BEEVI – Appellant
Versus
KERALA STATE BEVERAGES (MANUFACTURING AND MARKETING) CORPORATION LIMITED – Respondent
WP(C) 43292/2023
K.P.SUJESH KUMAR, KEERTHI K.NARAYANAN, S.SHALU ASWIN B., JEEVAN JOY, NAVEEN T, MOHANDAS, K.SUDHINKUMAR, SABU PULLAN, GOKUL D. SUDHAKARAN, R.BHASKARA KRISHNAN, BHARATH MOHAN, K.P.SATHEESAN (SR.)
Writ jurisdiction cannot resolve disputed factual issues in landlord-tenant disputes; remedies must be sought under the Kerala Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act.
Headnote:(A) Kerala Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act, 1965 - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Writ petition for vacant possession of shoproom - Petitioner alleged forgery of lease deed and illegal possession by first respondent - Court held that disputed questions of fact cannot be resolved in a writ petition - Remedy lies under the Kerala Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act. (Paras 2, 8, 9, 10)
(B) Jurisdiction - Writ jurisdiction is not to be invoked for resolving disputes of fact, especially in landlord-tenant matters, which are to be adjudicated under specific statutory provisions. (Paras 9, 10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, owner of shoprooms, alleged unauthorized subleasing and construction by respondents, claiming the first respondent's lease was forged. The first respondent contended that the petitioner had consented to the lease and was receiving rent until revenue recovery proceedings commenced.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the issues raised were factual disputes unsuitable for writ jurisdiction, directing the petitioner to seek remedies under the appropriate statutory framework.
Issues: The main issues were whether the lease deed was forged and if the first respondent was in illegal possession.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the existence of disputed questions of fact precludes the use of writ jurisdiction, emphasizing that landlord-tenant disputes should be resolved under the Kerala Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act.
Result: Writ petition dismissed, with the petitioner allowed to pursue remedies under the law.
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 30th day of January, 2025 The writ petition is filed, inter alia, to direct the first respondent to give vacant possession of the petitioner’s shoproom.
2. The petitioner is the owner of four shoprooms situated in the property covered by Ext. P1 settlement deed. She had leased out her remaining property to the respondents 3 and 4 as per Ext. P2 lease deed. While Ext. P2 lease deed was in force, the respondents 2 and 3 subleased the premises to the first respondent without the petitioner's consent. In the meantime, the respondents 2 and 3 unauthorisedly constructed seven shoprooms in the petitioner’s property. It was only when the petitioner received notice from the Panchayat, she became aware of all these matters. Although the petitioner had attempted to contact the respondents 2 and 3, they were not available. It was then that the petitioner came to learn that the first respondent was in possession of the petitioner's shoproom on the strength of Ext. P4 lease deed. The petitioner has not executed any lease deed. Her signature in Ext. P4 lease deed is forged. It is also mentioned in Ext. P4 that Rs. 4,20,000/- has been paid by the first respondent to the petitioner as rent. The petitioner has not received any amount. The petitioner has issued Ext. P5 lawyer’s notice to the first respondent demanding vacant possession of her shoproom. But, the first respondent is refusing to vacate the shoproom. The petitioner has also filed Ext. P6 complaint before the Station House Officer, Kallambalam. However, no action has been taken on the complaint. The inaction on the part of the police is arbitrary. Hence, the writ petition.
3. The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit denying the allegations in the writ petition. They have contended that they are a Government owned company who is granted the privilege to run foreign liquor wholesale and retail sales in Kerala. The petitioner had given Ext. R-1(a) consent to start the business in her shoproom. Later, she had executed Ext. P4 lease deed. Rs. 3,85,002/- was remitted to the petitioner's bank account. If the petitioner is disputing her signature on Ext. P4 lease deed, her remedy is before the Civil Court. On the basis of revenue recovery proceedings initiated by the Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd. (‘KSFE’, in short) the first respondent is now remitting the rent directly to them. It is to bye-pass the recovery proceedings, that the petitioner has filed the writ petition. The writ petition is meritless and is to be dismissed.
4. The respondents 2 and 3 have also filed a counter affidavit denying the allegations in the writ petition. They have contended that the petitioner had leased her property to the respondents 2 and 3 as per Ext. P2 lease deed. The respondents 2 and 3 have constructed a building of 3000 sq.ft., spending Rs. 45/-
lakh in the property. It is the petitioner who has leased the shoproom to the first respondent. The first respondent was paying rent directly to the petitioner. Now, due to the revenue recovery proceedings, the first respondent is paying the rent directly to the KSFE.
Hence, the writ petition may be dismissed.
5. Heard; the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent, and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3.
6. The principle prayer in the writ petition is to direct the first respondent to give vacant possession of the petitioner’s shoproom.
7. The petitioner’s case is that Ext.P4 lease deed is forged and the first respondent is in illegal possession of the shoproom. On the contrary, the first respondent’s case is that, it was the petitioner who submitted Ext. R-1(a) consent letter and subsequently executed Ext. P4 lease deed. The first respondent was paying rent to the petitioner till the revenue recovery proceedings were initiated by the KSFE. Now, the first respondent is paying rent directly to the KSFE as per the attachment order.
8. The contentions ra
