Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 6910
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
T. R. Ravi, J
MUHAMMED KUTTY
– Appellant
Versus
BIYYATHUMMA – Respondent
RSA 668 2022
K.P.SUDHEER, J. RAMKUMAR, FIROZ K.M., M.SHAJNA(K/1017/2006)
A suit for eviction can proceed without a formal notice under appropriate conditions, relying on the termination provisions in the Transfer of Property Act.
Headnote:
Eviction - Tenancy - Transfer of Property Act Section 106 - The court upheld lower court's eviction order, interpreting Section 106 on tenancy termination and confirming the absence of the Kerala Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act applicability.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs sought eviction of the appellant from a leased shop room to commence business. The trial court directed eviction, upheld by the appellate court, as the tenancy was orally established and had expired.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no grounds to interfere with the lower courts' judgments, affirming that eviction was justified under Section 106 due to proper termination of tenancy despite the appellant's prolonged possession.
Issues: Whether the eviction order based on the landlords' intentions and the circumstances of the tenancy's expiry was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that a suit for eviction is maintainable without formal notice, allowing the plaintiffs to reclaim possession as per the conditions of the oral lease.
Final Decision: The court upheld the eviction order, granting the appellant six months to vacate.
JUDGMENT
The 1st defendant in a suit for eviction filed by the respondents 1 and 2 is the appellant. The case of the plaintiffs is that the appellant had been put in possession of a shop room on lease on 15.05.2006. Eviction was sought for on the reason that the 2nd plaintiff and the 2nd defendant were intending to start a business in the premises and they required the property. The trial Court decreed the suit and directed the appellant to give vacant possession within two months from the date of the judgment. The judgment is dated 23.02.2016. In the appeal filed by the appellant before the first appellate Court, the judgment of the trial court was confirmed and the appellate Court granted 3 months' time to vacate. The judgment of the appellate Court was dated 18.07.2022.
The appellant has been continuing in possession from the date of the initial order for eviction in 2016 for the past 7 years. The second appeal has been filed contending that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court went wrong in granting the order of eviction. The grounds raised are in the nature of the grounds raised in a rent control petition, that is, challenging the bonafides of the land lord and the hardship that is caused to the tenant. Admittedly, the plaint schedule building is located in an area where the Kerala Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act is not applicable.
2. Heard the counsel on behalf of the appellant and the counsel on behalf of the respondents.
3. The counsel for the appellant contended that eviction ought not have been granted and the question whether the need put forward was proved has to be gone into and, the hardship that may be caused to the appellant had also to be taken into account before ordering eviction. The counsel for the respondents on the other hand submitted that as contemplated in Section 106 of the Transfer of the Property Act, the tenancy had been terminated by a valid notice. The fact that a notice had been issued is evident from the reply sent by the appellant on 30.04.2013. The suit is filed within two months thereafter on 20.06.2013. The lease put forward is an oral lease. It can only be a lease for less than one year and the period of lease has also expired by efflux of time.
4. In such circumstances, it is contended that there is nothing wrong in granting a decree of eviction for which the plaintiffs are entitled to. I have gone through the judgments of the trial Court and the appellate Court and I have heard the counsel on either side. I do not find any reason for interfering with the judgment of the appellate Court, confirming the decree passed by the trial Court. As observed by the first appellate Court, in view of the judgment inFirm Sardari Lal Vishwa Nath v. Pritam Singh ( AIR 1978 SC 1518 ), a suit for eviction is maintainable even in the absence of a notice.
5. Faced with the situation, the counsel for the appellant prayed that he may be given some reasonable time to vacate the premises. The counsel for the respondents pointed out that they have been waiting for the appellant to vacate the premises, for more than 10 years, and even if the Court is inclined to grant time, it may be a minimum time required to leave the premises. Having considered the request made by the counsel for the appellant and the stand taken by the counsel for the respondents, I am inclined to grant a reasonable time for the appellant to vacate the premises subject to certain conditions.
The second appeal is hence disposed of with the following directions;
1. The order of eviction granted by the trial Court and confirmed by the first appellate Court is upheld.
2. The appellant shall give vacant possession of the building within six months from today.
3. The appellant shall file an unconditional undertaking within three weeks from today agreeing to give vacant possession of the premises within six months from today.
4. The appellant shall also pay to the respondents, the arrears if any of the rent within three weeks from today and c
