Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 11634
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, P. G. Ajithkumar, JJ
SUGATHAN – Appellant
Versus
SHAJI DAS – Respondent
RCRev. 190 2021
SANTHEEP ANKARATH, J.RAMKUMAR
An oral agreement for sale does not negate the landlord-tenant relationship or prevent eviction if the landlord proves bona fide need under the Rent Control Act.
Headnote:
Eviction - Rent Control - Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 - Sections 11(3), 18(1)(b), 20 - The court upheld the landlord's right to evict the tenant under Section 11(3) due to proven bona fide need, rejecting tenant's claims based on alleged oral agreement of sale.
Fact of the Case:
The landlord sought eviction of the tenant under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings Act, claiming a bona fide need for the shop to establish a stationery business. The tenant argued that an agreement for sale existed, complicating the landlord-tenant relationship.
Issues: Whether the landlord had a bona fide need for the premises and if the tenant could depend on an alleged oral agreement for sale to avoid eviction.
Ratio Decidendi: The existence of an oral sale agreement does not alter the landlord-tenant relationship nor provide grounds for the tenant to resist eviction under the Act, provided that the landlord demonstrates a bona fide need.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed, allowing eviction.
O R D E R
Ajithkumar, J.
The revision petitioner-tenant is the respondent in R.C.P.No.13 of 2010 on the file of the Rent Control Court (Munsiff), Wadakkancherry. The respondent herein-landlord has filed that rent control petition seeking eviction of the petitioner under Section 11 (3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 . As per order dated 30.07.2014, the Rent Control Court ordered eviction. The petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 18 (1)(b) of the Act. The Rent Control Appellate Authority (Additional District Judge-I), Thrissur, dismissed the appeal as per its judgment dated 09.07.2021 in R.C.A.No.76 of 2014. Feeling aggrieved thereof, this revision petition under Section 20 of the Act has been preferred by the petitioner-tenant.
2. The respondent is the owner of the petition schedule shop room and its western adjoining room. He has decided to start a stationery business in the petition schedule shop room and also in the adjoining room. The rooms are to be joined together to start the business. For such a need, the respondent sought eviction of the petitioner under Section
11(3) of the Act.
3. The petitioner filed counter statement with the following contentions:
While he was possessing the petition schedule shop room as a tenant, an agreement for sale of the same to the petitioner was orally entered into by the respondent. Rs.4 lakhs was agreed to be the sale consideration, of which Rs.1 lakh was paid as advance. Therefore, there is no landlord- tenant relationship and petitioner is not liable to be evicted from the petitioner schedule shop room. The need urged by the respondent is not bona fide. He is in possession of other vacant rooms. He can start the business in the neighbouring room, if he really wants it. His intention is not to start any business and that is why he is claiming eviction of the petitioner, instead of starting his business in the adjoining room. The petitioner is depending for his livelihood from the income derived from the business in the petition schedule shop room and no other convenient room is available in the locality to shift his business.
4. Before the Rent Control Court, PW1 and RW1 were examined. Exts.A1 to A8, B1, B2 and C1 were admitted in evidence.
5. Today, when the matter came up for admission, we have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in detail.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner raised contentions regarding maintainability of the rent control petition on two grounds. First is that he has been in occupation of the petition schedule shop room on the basis of an agreement for sale entered into between himself and the respondent, as per which he agreed to sell the petition schedule shop room to the petitioner for a sale consideration of Rs.4 lakhs. The second is that in April, 2010, rent for the petition schedule shop room was enhanced on mutual agreement, and therefore, the rent control petition filed in June, 2010, is not maintainable.
7. The petitioner mooted that an agreement for sale was entered into orally and as its part performance, he continued to be in possession of the petition schedule shop room. Rs.1 lakh was claimed to have been paid as advance sale consideration as well. Other than raising such a contention, no evidence in support thereof has been let in. Of course, RW1, the petitioner deposed that there was such an agreement. Regarding entering into such an agreement or payment of money there is no document. An oral agreement cannot be the basis to claim benefit under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 for, a written agreement is mandatory to attract Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act.
8. In Safeena Salim v. P. A. Subair [2014 (4) KLT
752] a similar question was considered by this Court. It was held, “The trump card plea of the tenants is that they had a contract of sale in their favour and, therefore, the landlord's right does not continue to be what it was as between the landlord and the
