Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 26440
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P. B. Suresh Kumar, C.S. Sudha, JJ
VINOD B. – Appellant
Versus
ASHOK – Respondent
RCRev. 132 2020
T.V.GEORGE, SRI.JIMMY GEORGE (THADATHIL), K.SASIKUMAR(CAVEATOR), SRI.K.SASIKUMAR, SRI.S.ARAVIND
A tenant's non-bonafide denial of a landlord's title can justify eviction under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965.
Headnote:
Eviction - Rent Control - Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 - Sections 11(2)(b), 11(4)(ii), 11(4)(iii), 11(4)(v), 11(5), 20 - Summary of the Act sections illustrates grounds for eviction including default of rent, subletting contrary to terms, and lack of bonafide denial of ownership, confirming court's discretionary power to order eviction based on extensive evidence.
Fact of the Case:
The landlords sought eviction of a tenant for failing to pay rent and making unauthorized changes to the premises. The tenant defaulted on rent and denied the landlords' title, claiming ownership based on a sale deed, despite having rented from the landlords' predecessor for years.
Issues: Whether the findings of the Rent Control Appellate Authority are illegal or improper, especially regarding the tenant's claims of ownership and the denial of the landlords' title.
Ratio Decidendi: The tenant's denial of title was found non-bonafide as he continued paying rent post-sale; thus, the eviction was justified under several provisions of the Act that authorize eviction for payment defaults and unauthorized alterations.
Final Decision: The Rent Control Revision is dismissed, affirming the order of eviction.
O R D E R
C.S.Sudha, J.
This R.C.R. under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (the Act) has been filed against the judgment dated 10/01/2020 in R.C.A.No.15/2019 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (RCAA), Kollam, which appeal is against the order dated 30/01/2019 in R.C.P.No.15/2015 on the file of the Rent Control Court (RCC), Kollam. The revision petitioner is the appellant in the appeal and the respondent in the R.C.P. The respondents herein are the respondents in the appeal and the petitioners-landlords in the R.C.P. The parties and the documents will be referred to as described in the R.C.P.
2. R.C.P.No.15/2015 was filed by the petitioners-landlords seeking eviction under Section 11 (2)(b), 11(4)(ii), 11(4)(iii), 11(4)(v) and 11(5) of the Act. In the R.C.P. it is alleged that Sarojini Amma, the paternal aunt of the petitioners was the absolute owner of the shop room bearing no.QMC-370, situated in the heart of Kollam town. She leased out the shop room to the respondent, her brother's son in June 1986 for conducting a stationery business. The shop room, namely, the petition schedule room was initially bearing no.QMC-237, which has been changed to QMC -370. The monthly rent agreed was ₹125/-. The respondent has paid rent to Sarojini Amma till January 1994. Thereafter, he committed default in the payment of rent. In the lease deed there are specific stipulations to the effect that the respondent shall not bring about any changes to the tenanted premises and also that he shall not sublet the same or induct any strangers into the shop. However, contrary to the terms of the lease agreement, the respondent has made material alterations to the shop room. He has divided the shop room into three independent shop rooms and two of them were leased out to strangers, namely, Anilkumar and Jayakrishnan, in violation of the terms of the rent deed. Therefore, Sarojini Amma issued Ext.A9 notice dated 09/10/2001 calling upon the respondent to terminate the sublease, restore the shop room to its original position and also to clear the rent arrears. A copy of the notice was issued to the sub tenants also. Sarojini Amma, in the meantime, had also filed petitions before the Corporation of Kollam intimating the Corporation about her objection in renewing the license in the name of the respondent as well as the sub- tenants. She also filed Ext.A12 caveat before the Subordinate Court, Kollam. Notice on the caveat was issued and the same was received by the respondent. The respondent on receipt of Ext.A9 notice, approached Sarojini Amma and agreed to terminate the sublease as well as to restore the shop rooms to its original position by removing the partition walls that he had constructed. The arrears till the said date was also cleared by him. The rent by mutual consent was also enhanced to ₹500/- per month.
2.1. The respondent continued paying rent to Sarojini Amma till her death on 17/11/2008. During the life time of Sarojini Amma, she had executed Ext.A14 registered Will by which she bequeathed the shop room, the adjacent shop rooms and the properties that were owned by her name in favour of the petitioners. On the death of Sarojini Amma, the Will came into existence and thus the petitioners became the absolute owners of the petition schedule room and the property in which it is situated. Mutation has been effected in the name of the petitioners and they have paid land tax as well as building tax of the property. After the demise of Sarojini Amma, the petitioners informed the respondent of the fact that they had obtained title over the property on the basis of the Will and demanded him to pay the rent of the shop room. The respondent paid rent till April 2013. Thereafter, he has committed default in the payment of rent. Though the petitioners demanded the rent, the respondent has not paid the rent so far. The respondent has ceased to occupy the tenanted premises for several years and he has abando
