Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 77030
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MR. AMIT RAWAL, MR. EASWARAN S., JJ
K A ANTONY – Appellant
Versus
SOONAM JOSE – Respondent
RCREV. NO. 292 OF 2019 | RCREV. NO. 293 OF 2019 | RCREV. NO. 294 OF 2019
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.S.VINOD BHAT, K.PAUL KURIAKOSE, K.PAUL KURIAKOSE, SRI.T.A.RAFEEK
For the Respondents: K.PAUL KURIAKOSE, SRI.BASIL MATHEW, ANAGHA LAKSHMY RAMAN
The court affirmed that landlords maintain rights despite tenant objections regarding title, emphasizing procedural adherence over mere denial of entitlement.
Headnote:(A) Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 - Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) - Rent control revision petitions were filed by tenants against eviction on grounds of arrears of rent and personal necessity - The relationship between landlord and tenant was established as ongoing despite the tenants’ objections regarding title post-15 years - Appellate authority concluded the tenants’ objections were not bona fide and thus upheld eviction. (Paras 1-16)
(B) Landlord-Tenant Relationship - Essential to establish continuity of landlord-tenant relationship; courts require evidentiary support to sustain claims of eviction based on non-payment of rent, particularly in light of previous judgments. The current ruling emphasizes the need for proper legal procedures in situations of conflicting claims to rent, urging tenants to seek court assistance when faced with eviction threats. (Paras 3-16)
Facts of the case:
The respondents, tenants since 1986, faced eviction due to arrears of rent. The landlord claimed the tenant relationship persisted despite an expired rental agreement, leading to legal disputes. (Paras 1-2)
Findings of Court:
The court found procedural correctness in the finality of earlier judgments affirming landlord rights and ruled that revising petitions did not possess substantial merit. (Paras 1-16)
Issues: Whether the relationship of landlord and tenant was valid despite subsequent claims of title and whether prior judgments dictated the current proceedings. (Paras 2-14)
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that mere denial of landlord's title by tenants does not negate an existing landlord-tenant relationship, particularly when definitive judgments affirm both parties’ roles and obligations. (Paras 11-14)
Result: Revisions dismissed but allows tenants time to clear arrears.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of eviction actions due to arrears and tenant agreements. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. legal obligations of tenants regarding rental payments despite title disputes. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. royal authorities and previous judgments influence current court findings. (Para 8 , 11) |
| 4. importance of validation in landlord-tenant relationships under the law. (Para 10 , 12) |
| 5. court’s order for tenants to pay overdue amounts while dismissing revisions. (Para 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 Section 11 (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).
