Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 26785
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P. B. Suresh Kumar, SOPHY THOMAS, JJ
FRANCIS
– Appellant
Versus
ABDUL GAFOOR – Respondent
RCRev. 176 2022
SRI.S.JIJI, SRI.M.M.BABY, SRI.VINOD K.V., SRI.ABHILASH K. VINAYAN(K/1614/2022)
The court established that a mere licensee lacks rights against a landlord when there is no landlord-tenant relationship, allowing eviction based on bona fide needs.
Headnote:
Eviction - Rent Control - Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act - Section 11(2)(b), Section 11(3) - The court upheld the eviction based on bona fide need, emphasizing the absence of a landlord-tenant relationship and confirming the landlord's entitlement to the premises for urgent medical reasons.
Fact of the Case:
The landlord sought eviction of a tenant occupying a flat based on arrears of rent and bona fide need for personal use due to medical treatment. The tenant claimed no landlord-tenant relationship existed, arguing he was merely a licensee under a construction company.
Finding of the Court:
The court confirmed that there was no landlord-tenant relationship and upheld the landlord's bona fide need for the property, emphasizing the genuine nature of the landlord's circumstances, including his medical condition.
Issues: Whether the tenant had a valid claim to occupy the premises and if the landlord's need constituted a bona fide reason for eviction under the applicable law.
Ratio Decidendi: The absence of a privity of contract between the landlord and the tenant negated the tenant's claim to remain in the premises, corroborating the landlord's legitimate need under Section 11(3) of the Act.
Final Decision: The Rent Control Revision is dismissed.
O R D E R
Sophy Thomas, J.
The tenant in RCP No.95 of 2015 on the file of Rent Control Court, Ernakulam, is before us in revision, after suffering concurrent orders of eviction under Section 11 (3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘The Act’).
2. The brief facts can be summarized as follows, referring the parties according to their status in RCP No.95 of 2015. The landlord filed RCP No.95 of 2015 under Section 11 (2)(b) and (3) of the Act, for evicting the respondents from the petitioner schedule flat on the ground of arrears of rent and bona fide need. The petitioner/landlord obtained the petition schedule apartment, by virtue of a sale deed in the year 2013. Prior to its purchase, the vendor had leased out that flat to the 1st respondent/Cochin Star Constructions.
The 1st respondent, as part of his business arrangement, permitted the 2nd respondent, who is the revision petitioner herein, to occupy the petition schedule flat, till completion of construction of the apartment booked by the 2nd respondent with the 1st respondent. The petitioner/landlord informed the 1st respondent about his intention to purchase the flat, as he was in urgent need of a flat at Ernakulam, since he had to undergo treatment in connection with his kidney problem at Medical Trust Hospital, Ernakulam, for which, he has to stay at Ernakulam along with his family. The 1st respondent had assured the landlord that he would surrender vacant possession of the petition schedule flat, shifting the 2nd respondent to some other alternate accommodation. It was also informed that the 2nd respondent was only a licencee in that flat. But he did not keep his word, and the flat was not surrendered by the 2nd respondent as assured by the 1st respondent.
3. The petitioner/landlord personally approached the 2nd respondent requesting him to surrender vacant possession, as he was in dire need of that flat to continue his treatment at Ernakulam. He was not ready to do so, and instead he filed OS No.121 of 2013 before the Munsiff Court, Ernakulam, seeking injunction against forcible eviction. The 1st respondent/Cochin Star Constructions remained ex parte in that suit. The learned Munsiff found that the 1st respondent/Cochin Star Constructions was the lessee under the vendor of the petitioner/landlord and the 2nd respondent/revision petitioner was only a licencee under the 1st respondent finding that there was no material to show revocation of the licence in favuor of the 2nd respondent/revision petitioner, he was permitted to occupy the schedule building, till the license is revoked. It was also found that, since the 2nd respondent was occupying the apartment on the basis of a licence arrangement, he was entitled to get injunction against forcible eviction by the landlord. The 1st respondent remained ex parte in the RCP also.
4. The 2nd respondent opposed the Rent Control Petition, challenging the landlord-tenant relationship between the petitioner and himself, thereby questioning the maintainability of the rent control proceedings. According to him, there was no lease arrangement between himself and the landlord. The landlord was trying to throw him out from the petition schedule flat illegally. There was lease agreement between himself and Cochin Star Constructions. The Munsiff Court also found that there was no privity of contract between the petitioner-landlord and the 2nd respondent, and so he was entitled to stay in the petition schedule flat till the licence arrangement with Cochin Star Constructions is revoked. The petitioner/landlord purchased the schedule flat fully knowing about the lease arrangement between Cochin Star Constructions and the 2nd respondent. As long as the lease arrangement with the 1st respondent is not terminated, he is entitled to possess that building. The vendor of the landlord has not initiated any eviction proceeding against lessee - the 1st respondent/Cochin Star Constructions so far. He is di
