Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 77029
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MR. AMIT RAWAL, MR. EASWARAN S., JJ
K A ANTONY – Appellant
Versus
26SOONAM JOSE – Respondent
RCREV. NO. 292 OF 2019 | RCREV. NO. 293 OF 2019 | RCREV. NO. 294 OF 2019
For the Appellants/Petitioners: K.PAUL KURIAKOSE, SRI.S.VINOD BHAT, KUM.ANAGHA LAKSHMY RAMAN, SRI.REJI GEORGE, SRI.T.A.RAFEEK
For the Respondents: K.PAUL KURIAKOSE, SRI.S.VINOD BHAT, KUM.ANAGHA LAKSHMY RAMAN
Tenants cannot deny landlord's title if an established landlord-tenant relationship exists, despite claims of lease expiry.
Headnote:(A) Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 - Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) - Rent Control Revisions - The tenants claimed that the landlord's right to evict was invalid post the expiry of a 15-year term in a lease agreement. The court held that the landlord-tenant relationship persisted under prior judgments, affirming the need to pay rent as stipulated, rejecting claims of invalid title by tenants. (Paras 1, 2, 11, 12)
(B) Legal Principle - Tenant's obligation to pay rent persists despite claims of title disputes or lapses in lease agreements.
(C) Findings of Court - The relationship between the parties as landlord and tenant was upheld based on prior court decisions.
(D)
Issues: The court considered if tenants could deny the landlord's title post the expiry of the lease. (E)
Ratio Decidendi: The ruling established that mere denial of title is not sufficient to dispute the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller if there's an established landlord-tenant relationship. (F)
Result: The revisions are dismissed, and an order is given to the tenants to clear their arrears.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. dispute over tenant-landlord relationship and eviction grounds. (Para 1 , 2 , 14) |
| 2. arguments regarding title disputes and eviction. (Para 3 , 4 , 6) |
| 3. court's observations on prior judgments and their relevance. (Para 7 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. final verdict and directive to resolve arrears. (Para 12 , 17) |
ORDER
This order of us shall dispose of three Rent Control Revisions preferred by the three tenants in a scheduled building taken on rent in the year 1986, who have not been successful in defending the appeal preferred by the landlord seeking eviction on the ground of arrears of rent. Though the ground of personal necessity also was taken before the rent control as ground of ejectment, but given up later on.
2. The controversy between the parties has a little checkered history, the details of which are extracted hereunder:
2.1. Vide agreement dated 24.02.1992, a trust, by name Ernakulam Taxi Drivers Union Trust had entered into an agreement (Built, Operate and Transfer, BOT in short) with Sri.K.A. Antony who was given permission to raise the construction of four storied building with a permission to let out three stories as 4th floor was agreed to be retained for the trust. Clause 4 of the aforementioned agreement limited the period of BOT for 15 years. Clause 5 also entitled the parties to the agreement to enter into fresh agreement for payment of 75% of the rent by Sri.Antony to the trust.
2.2. By virtue of the power given in the agreement referred above, by an executor, that is the Trust, Sri.K.A.Antony leased out the premises to various tenants including the petitioners herein.
2.3. In 2001, rent petition was instituted at the instance of Sri.K.A. Antony for claiming arrears of rent as provided under Section 11 (2)(b) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 , in respect of one tenant, namely, E.S Jose, the petitioner in RCR No.294/2019. In the aforementioned proceedings, the tenant raised objection with regard to the title of Sri.K.A. Antony in claiming the rent owing to the fact that the period of 15 years by that time ceased to exist and therefore, the relationship of the landlord/tenant did not subsist. The aforementioned litigation was decided in favour Sri.K.A.Antony led to appeals, one of which is bearing No.13/2005 which was also dismissed. The matter did not rest here and it came before this Court vide R.C.R. No.31 of 2006 titled as E.S Jose Vs K. Antony. The argument with regard to the relationship of the tenant was deprecated/rejected and it was held that the relationship of the tenants vis a vis Sri. K.A.Antony would continue to be as a landlord and they would pay the rent. The aforementioned revision petition was disposed of by order dated 19.6.2007. The matter was taken up before the Honourable Supreme Court in S.L.P No.18176-18177 of 2007, which was dismissed. 2.4. Sri.K.A Antony again instituted various rent petitions. The relevant cases for adjudication in the present litigations are R.C.P. Nos.166, 167, and 168 of 2010 seeking arrears of rent and as well as personal necessity as provided under (2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act.
2.5. The petitioners tenants objected the said claim by challenging the title of Sri. K. A.Antony on the premise that he had no locus to institute the rent petitions and claim rent in view of the expiry of the period of 15 years, which according to them, expired in 2001 and, moreover, though they continue to pay the rent to Sri.K.A.Antony till 2003, but thereafter stopped paying the rent owing to the receipt of Ext.B6 notice by the Trust which is dated 10.3.2003. The tenants were in arrears of rent which gave a cause of action to Sri. K.A.Antony to institute subsequent rent petitions bearing Nos.166, 167 and 168 of 2010 claiming the arrears of rent for a particular period as also under section 11(3). In the same very proceedings, the petitioners/tenants raised objection of title on the premise of the expiry of the period of 15 years in 2001, though they continued t
