Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 16242
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P. B. Suresh Kumar, C.S. Sudha, JJ
K.P.GEORGE – Appellant
Versus
SUNIL P.VARGHESE – Respondent
CO 52 2016
SRI.N.M.MOHAMMED AYUB, SRI.T.K.RADHAKRISHNAN
Establishing a clear landlord-tenant relationship is essential for eviction proceedings; unresolved ownership disputes necessitate civil court adjudication.
Headnote:
Eviction - Tenant Rights - Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 - Sections 11(2)(b), 20 - The court examined ownership claims under the Act, noting that meaningful eviction relies on established landlord-tenant relationships, rejecting claims of partial eviction based on incomplete ownership.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought eviction of the respondent tenant claiming ownership of a shop room under the Kerala Building Act. The Rent Control Court allowed the eviction, but the Appellate Authority reversed it, citing impermissibility of partial eviction and disputed ownership.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the petitioner failed to establish clear ownership over the entire tenanted premises. It ruled the Rent Control Court's findings on landlord-tenant relationships and eviction unnecessary, confirming the Appellate Authority's dismissal of the eviction petition.
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to eviction based on disputed ownership and whether partial eviction is permissible under the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that only bona fide disputes regarding landlord's title necessitate civil court intervention for eviction. The complexity of ownership claims invalidated the eviction proceedings in the Rent Control Courts.
Final Decision: The Rent Control Revision is dismissed, confirming that eviction cannot be ordered under Section 11(2)(b).
O R D E R
C.S.Sudha, J.
This revision filed under Section 20 of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (the Act) is against the judgment dated 20/10/2015 in R.C.A.No.8/2014 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (RCAA), Ernakulam, which appeal was preferred against the order dated 30/10/2013 in R.C.P.No.41/2012 of the Rent Control Court (RCC), Ernakulam. The revision petitioner herein is the respondent in the appeal and the petitioner-landlord in the R.C.P. The respondent herein is the appellant before the RCAA and the respondent-tenant in the R.C.P. The parties and the documents in this revision petition will be referred to as described in the R.C.P.
2. The petitioner claiming to be the landlord of the petition schedule room moved the RCC seeking eviction of the respondent under Section 11(2)(b) of the Act. The RCC allowed the petition. The respondent- tenant took up the matter in appeal. The RCAA holding that partial eviction is impermissible, reversed the finding of the RCC and dismissed the appeal.
Aggrieved, the petitioner/landlord has come up in revision.
3. The point that arises for consideration is whether there is any illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the findings of the court below. 4. Heard Adv.T.K.Radhakrishnan, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Adv.N.M.Mohammed Ayub, the learned counsel for the respondent.
5. For a resolution of the controversy involved, a reference to the pleadings of the parties in the R.C.P is required. In the R.C.P., the allegation is that the petitioner by virtue of Ext.A1 sale deed is the absolute owner in possession of an extent of 0.38 ares equivalent to 938 sq. links of land and building comprised in survey no.900 and re.sy.no.537/12 in block no.10, which includes two shop rooms bearing door no.TP/VII/439 (VI/293) and VII/440 (VI/294) of Trippunithura Municipality. According to the petitioner, pursuant to the sale, when he took possession of the two rooms, it was found that the respondent was in possession of the shop room bearing no. VII/440 in his capacity as a tenant of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner. It was also found that the adjacent shop owners had encroached into a portion of the shop room of the petitioner relating to which he filed O.S.No.674/2004 for recovery of possession. The said suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner. In the execution proceedings, when delivery was attempted to be taken, the respondent obstructed and filed a claim petition. Hence symbolic delivery alone was ordered by the court. The respondent has now become the tenant of the petitioner in respect of the room bearing No.VII/440. The petitioner is a bona fide purchaser of the property with one shop room. Because of the pendency of suit, the petitioner was unable to demand the rent for the past seven years. Symbolic delivery of the property was taken on 07/10/2008 and the same was reported before the court on 13/10/2008 in E.P. No.188/07 in O.S No.674/04 on the file of the Munsiffs Court, Ernakulam. The rent of the premise is ₹175/- per month The petitioner being the owner of the shop room occupied by the respondent, is entitled to the rent arrears from 07/10/2008 onwards on a pro-rata basis. The petitioner issued Ext.A6 notice dated 20/10/2009 demanding rent arrears. The first notice issued to the respondent was returned unclaimed and therefore Ext.A8 notice dated 05/02/2010 was issued to the respondent. The said notice was accepted by the respondent to which Ext.A9 reply notice dated 27/02/2010 has been sent, raising untenable contentions. Hence the R.C.P. seeking eviction under Section 11(2)(b) of the Act.
6. The respondent-tenant filed objection to the R.C.P. disputing the allegation of the petitioner that he is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the building bearing door no. VII/440. According to the respondent, the petitioner is neither the absolute owner nor the co-owner or the landlord of the entire room bearing
