Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 60853
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A. Muhamed Mustaque, Shoba Annamma Eapen, JJ
TOMY J CHERKKOTT – Appellant
Versus
M.M. ABDUL SATHAR – Respondent
OP (RC) NO. 48 OF 2022 | OP (RC) NO. 70 OF 2022 | OP (RC) NO. 54 OF 2022 | OP (RC) NO. 55 OF 2022 | OP (RC) NO. 56 OF 2022 | OP (RC) NO. 58 OF 2022 | OP (RC) NO. 64 OF 2022 | OP (RC) NO. 60 OF 2022 | OP (RC) NO. 62 OF 2022 | OP (RC) NO. 65 OF 2022 | OP (RC) NO. 67 OF 2022 | OP (RC) NO. 63 OF 2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M.SASINDRAN SATHEESHAN ALAKKADAN
For the Respondents: GEORGE MATHEWS
M.M.ANTO(K/320/1979)
MAHESH V RAMAKRISHNAN
V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN
T.P.SAJID
ADEEB KAMAL P.N.(K/000206/2020)
Rent Control Court can exercise inherent powers to amend pleadings unless explicitly excluded under law.
Headnote:(A) Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 - Section 23(1)(j) - Rent Control Court’s jurisdiction to amend pleadings - Landlords sought amendments in rent petitions to reflect additional needs due to change in licensing policy - Court ruled that inherent power exists for amending pleadings unless specifically excluded, allowing landlords to amend petitions to reflect bona fide need (Paras 1-20).
(B) Procedural Jurisdiction - The Court reaffirmed that mere specificity of powers under the Act does not exclude inherent powers available to the Rent Control Court for the advancement of justice (Paras 20, 21).
Facts of the case:
The petitioners, landlords of 'Dwaraka Tourist Home', sought eviction of tenants to amend their pleadings based on obtaining a new bar classification and associated operational needs, after their original petitions were dismissed for lack of maintainability.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the need for these amendments reflected the legitimate business requirements and should be permitted for just adjudication of the matter.
Issues: Whether the Rent Control Court has jurisdiction under Section 23(1)(j) to amend pleadings in Rent Control petitions.
Ratio Decidendi: The Rent Control Court possesses inherent powers to amend pleadings as necessary for effective adjudication, notwithstanding narrow provisions of Section 23(1)(j) of the Act, which only allow amendments for defects or errors.
Result: Orders of the Rent Control Court are set aside; amendments permitted.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. rent control court's jurisdiction to amend pleadings. (Para 1 , 2 , 14) |
| 2. details on landlords/eviction specifics. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's rulings on landlord's amendment applications. (Para 6 , 20 , 22) |
| 4. arguments presented by landlords and tenants. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. reference to additional legal precedents. (Para 13 , 15 , 16) |
JUDGMENT 'C.R.'
Shoba Annamma Eapen, J:
The common question involved in all these Original Petitions (Rent Control) is whether the Rent Control Court exercising jurisdiction under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has jurisdiction to amend the pleadings in the Rent Control Petition on the application of the petitioners/landlords.
2. With regard to the said question, we may refer to essential facts. We will refer to the parties according to their status in the Rent Control Petition.
3. The petitioners are the owners of the building wherein the petition scheduled shop rooms are situated. The Rent Control Petitions are filed seeking eviction of the respondents under Sections 11(4)(i) and 11(8) of the Act. The petitioners are the landlords and the respondents are the tenants.
4. The original petitions are filed against the orders dated 28.1.2022 in I.A.Nos.108/2020 in R.C.P.No.37/2018, 112/2020 in RCP No.41/2018, 109/2020 in R.C.P.No.40/2018, 113/2020 in R.C.P.No.42/2018, 111/2020 in RCP No.35/2018, 110/2020 in RCP No.44/2018,105/2020 in RCP No.31/2018,106/2020 in RCP No.34/2018,115/2020 in RCP No.43/2018, 114/2020 in RCP No.38/2018, 107/2020 in RCP No.29/2018 and 96/2020 in RCP No.39/2018 on the files of the Rent Control Court (Munsiff), Payyannur filed by the landlords, for amendment of the Rent Control Petitions. The respondents are the tenants. The petitions were dismissed by the Rent Control Court as not maintainable. Aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioners have filed these original petitions. Since all these matters are interlinked and are of the same issue, we have heard the petitions together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
5. The petitioners/landlords are the absolute owners of 'Dwaraka Tourist Home' obtained by them as per Sale Deed No.3347 of 2012 of the S.R.O., Payyannur. The rooms in the building were let out to different tenants. The landlords were conducting bar attached hotel from 1982 in the building, when the ownership was in the hands of the previous owners. The running of bar attached hotel was continued by the landlords, after purchase of the property by them in the year 2012. During 2014, the Government of Kerala declared a new Abkari policy cancelling the licence of all bar hotels except the bar in five star hotels. The landlords had to stop the bar which was conducted in the portion of the building. Subsequently, in 2015, Government of Kerala amended the Abkari Policy and granted licence to the landlords to conduct wine and beer parlour in the portion possessed by the landlords. The Government again amended the policy restoring all the bars which situate 500 meters away from National Highways and State Highways which have three star classifications and facilities. There are other two bar hotels in Payyannur. In order to compete with them and to restore the three star classification, the petitioners have to provide more facilities such as separate vegetarian and non-vegetarian restaurants, separate lobbies on the ground floor and first floor, separate executive bar, coffee bar, gift shop, conference hall and several other modern facilities and bonafidely require the petition schedule rooms in the possession of the tenants and hence filed the Rent Control Petitions seeking eviction of the respondents under Section 11(4)(i) and 11(8) of the Act.
6. After filing of the Rent Control Petitions, the landlords got three star classification bar licence to the rooms in possession of the landlords. The learned counsel for the petitioners/landlords submits that though the landlords obtaine
