Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 17938
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A. Muhamed Mustaque, Shoba Annamma Eapen, JJ
TOMY J CHERKKOTT
– Appellant
Versus
KURUPPILLATH AHAMMED – Respondent
OP (RC) 63 2022
M.SASINDRAN SATHEESHAN ALAKKADAN, GEORGE MATHEWS, M.M.ANTO, MAHESH V RAMAKRISHNAN, V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN, THAYYIB SHA P S NIVED K.V, ADEEB KAMAL P.N.
The inherent power of the Rent Control Court allows for amendments to pleadings beyond mere corrections of defects, as Section 23(1)(j) does not restrict such jurisdiction.
Headnote:
Jurisdiction - Rent Control - Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 - Sections 11(4)(i), 11(8), 23(1)(j) - The court analyzed the inherent powers of the Rent Control Court regarding amendments, interpreting Section 23(1)(j) as not limiting pleadings amendments and allowing inherent jurisdiction to ensure justice.
Fact of the Case:
Landlords filed Rent Control Petitions seeking eviction of tenants under sections of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, asserting a need for premises to expand their business after obtaining a three-star classification bar license.
Finding of the Court:
The Rent Control Court had previously denied amendments to the petitions focused on additional business needs, seeing them as beyond mere 'defects or errors' as per Section 23(1)(j) of the Act, prompting the landlords to appeal.
Issues: Whether the Rent Control Court possesses jurisdiction to amend pleadings in Rent Control Petitions beyond correcting defects as mandated by Section 23(1)(j) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965.
Ratio Decidendi: The decision established that the Rent Control Court has inherent powers to permit amendments to pleadings, as long as those amendments do not contradict existing claims and are deemed necessary by the court for a fair procedure.
Final Decision: The Original Petitions are allowed, permitting landlords to amend the Rent Control Petitions.
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 :-19-:
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 :-20-:
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.
:-21-:
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 obtained three star classification bar licence, in order to compete with other bar hotels, the petitioners require bar attached restaurants and other facilities for conducting the business. To expand the business, the petitioners require restaurant, local bar, executive bar, banquet hall, reception etc, on the ground floor. Since, the three s
