Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 14136
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P. B. Suresh Kumar, SOPHY THOMAS, JJ
K.V MUHAMMED RAIZE – Appellant
Versus
NALIA HARIS – Respondent
OP (RC) 86 2023
V.RAMKUMAR NAMBIAR
The court affirmed that a party cannot amend pleadings to withdraw clear admissions that affirm the opposing party's rights.
Headnote:
Tenant - Rent Control - Temporary Provisions - The court dismissed the tenant's appeal against the Rent Control Court's decision, emphasizing that amendments to pleadings that withdraw clear admissions are not permissible under prevailing legal standards.
Fact of the Case:
The tenant challenged an order from the Rent Control Court that denied his application to amend his counter statement regarding the landlords' title to the property, which he must have possessed without claiming rent under a gift deed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the tenant had previously admitted the landlord-tenant relationship and attempted to withdraw this admission through his amendment application, which the court deemed impermissible.
Issues: Whether the tenant could amend his counter statement to dispute the landlords' title after admitting the landlord-tenant relationship.
Ratio Decidendi: Amendments that seek to retract clear admissions made in pleadings are not allowed, as they would unfairly affect the rights conferred on the other party.
Final Decision: The original petition is dismissed.
J U D G M E N T
Sophy Thomas, J.
The petitioner herein is the tenant in RCP No.150 of 2019 on the file of Rent Control Court, Kannur. He is impugning Ext.P5 order of the Rent Control Court in I.A No.2 of 2023. The respondents herein are the landlords.
2. The landlords filed RCP No.150 of 2019, for evicting the tenant on the ground of arrears of rent and bonafide need. The tenant filed counter statement opposing the Rent Control Petition. Thereafter he preferred Ext.P3 petition to amend his counter statement. That was opposed by the landlords. The Rent Control Court dismissed the amendment application vide Ext.P5 order. The tenant mistakenly challenged that order before the Rent Control Appellate Authority which culminated in Ext.P7 order of dismissal, as it was not maintainable. Ext.P6 is the copy of order of this Court, by which dismissal of his prayer by the Rent Control Court, to raise a preliminary issue as to the title of landlords 1 and 2, was confirmed. The tenant is challenging Ext.P5 order contending that it is unjust and illegal.
3. The amendment application was opposed by the landlords, as the tenant has no locus standi to challenge the settlement deed No.2872 of 2012, by which landlords 1 and 2 obtained the petition schedule building. The tenant had admitted the landlord-tenant relationship in the counter statement filed by him, and now he cannot withdraw that contention, by way of an amendment. The Rent Control Court dismissed the I.A finding that, the attempt of the tenant is to withdraw the admissions he had set forth in the counter statement. By allowing the amendment, the tenant may change his case completely, and substitute an entirely new case.
4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/tenant and learned counsel appearing for the respondents/landlords.
5. According to the petitioner/tenant, the landlords obtained petition schedule building as per settlement deed No.2872 of 2012. For effecting a gift under Mohammedan Shariat Law, one of the essential ingredients is delivery of possession of the property gifted.
When a property is in possession of the tenant, and the same is gifted, the donor cannot reserve the right to receive rent. In that case, the gift is incomplete and invalid. So, the tenant is contending that, since the original landlords reserved the right to receive the rent from the tenant, the gift is incomplete and invalid, and so the respondents will not get any right over the petition schedule building on the basis of that gift deed. If so, the respondents cannot be the owner of the petition schedule building and hence he is disputing their title. In order to incorporate those pleadings in the counter statement, he filed I.A No.2 of 2023.
6. The respondents pointed out that, the tenant had earlier filed I.A No.3 of 2022, to raise a preliminary issue as to whether respondents 1 and 2 are the landlords of the petition schedule building. That application was dismissed, against which the tenant preferred OP(RC) No.3 of 2023 before this Court. As per Ext.P6 judgment dated 06.01.2023, a Division Bench of this Court dismissed that petition finding that, the tenant preferred such a petition only after listing the RCP for trial. Moreover, in the order in I.A No.3 of 2022, the Rent Control Court had stated that the said issue can be decided after taking evidence. After dismissal of OP(RC) No.3 of 2023, the tenant preferred I.A No.2 of 2023, for amending his counter statement for incorporating pleadings, challenging the ownership of respondents 1 and 2 over the petition schedule building.
7. On going through the order impugned, it could be seen that the tenant had admitted the landlord-tenant relationship in the counter statement filed by him, before the Rent Control Court. Now his attempt is to withdraw that statement by way of amendment. Moreover, the tenant being a third party, he has no right to challenge the gift deed by which respondents 1 and 2 obtained ownership and possession over the petition s
