A claim of tenancy lacks merit if there is no credible evidence of a landlord-tenant relationship and if the lease was established after the initiation of legal proceedings.

This execution second appeal under Section 100 read with Order XLII Rule 1 CPC filed by the claim petitioner/appellant is against the judgment dated 17/01/2022 in A.S.No.55/2020 on the file of the District Court, Thiruvananthapuram, which appeal is against the order dated 26/02/2020 in E.A.No.561/2015 in E.P.No.559/2012 in O.S.No.1103/2005 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The parties and the documents will be referred to as described in O.S.No.1103/2005.

2. O.S.No.1103/2005 was a suit for partition. According to the plaintiffs, the plaint schedule property belonged to their father late Chidambaram. The first defendant is their mother and defendants 2 to 4 are their siblings. The suit was decreed and a preliminary decree was passed. I.A.No.7917/2007 for passing a final decree was allowed on 30/11/2009 and on the basis of Ext.C1 report and plan of the advocate commissioner, division of the property was effected and the plots referred to in Ext.C1 allotted to the respective sharers. The first defendant, Renjitham died after the passing of the final decree. E.P.No.559/2012 was filed by plaintiffs 1 and 2/decree holders against defendants 2 to 4 for getting delivery of their respective shares. The claim petitioner/appellant then filed E.A.No.561/2015 claiming to be a tenant under Paul, the second defendant, the first judgment debtor in the E.P. He claimed to be a tenant in respect of building no.T.C.-4/1145, Kuravankonam situated in 7 cents of property in survey no.3659/2, Kowdiar Village. According to the claim petitioner, after obtaining a lease in respect of the 7 cents of property, he had put up a shed in the property with his own funds and erected permanent structures for conducting a workshop in the property. He also paid an amount of ₹10,000/- as security deposit to the second defendant. He was paying monthly rent at the rate of ₹2,000/- to the second defendant.

3.Plaintiffs 1 and 2/decree holders filed objection contending that the claim petitioner was a complete stranger and that he had no right over the decree schedule property. There was never any landlord tenant relationship between the parties. The second defendant was ex-parte at the trial stage as well as in the execution stage. His share had been demarcated in the final decree proceedings. However, he failed to remit the stamp duty and hence the reason why the share had not been allotted to him. The plaintiffs/decree holders remitted the entire stamp duty. The petitioner and his henchmen managed to get a rent deed executed by the second defendant, an alcoholic, which is not binding on the plaintiffs/decree holders. The entire 7 cents of property was under co-ownership. The second defendant was well aware that the 7 cents comprised in survey no.3659/2 had been allotted to plaintiffs 1, 2 and the 4th defendant as per the final decree. The petitioner is not a tenant of any building and therefore he is not entitled to get the benefit of the provisions of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act , 1965 (KBLRC Act).

4.PW 1 to PW3 were examined and Exts.A1 to A7 were marked. The execution court after hearing both sides, as per order dated 26/02/2020 found no grounds to send the documents relied on by the claim petitioner for examination by handwriting experts.

It was also found that the claim petitioner had no independent right, title or interest in the property and hence dismissed the claim filed by him. Aggrieved by the order of the execution court, the claim petitioner filed A.S.No.55/2020. The first appellate court also dismissed the claim petition finding that the claim petitioner/appellant had been unable to establish his case that he was a tenant in respect to the property. Hence, the second appeal by the claim petitioner.

5.Heard the learned counsel for the claim petitioner/appellant.

6.It is submitted that the claim petitioner/appellant is conducting a workshop in a shed in the decree schedule property.

This fact has been admitted