Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 48969
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
N. NAGARESH, J
RAJARAM – Appellant
Versus
SURESH – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 29753 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHI.MOHAMMED ASHRAF
For the Respondents: SRI.C.Y.VINOD KUMAR, SRI.VIVEK K.VIJAYAN, SMT.ANIMA M., GOVERNMENT PLEADER
Tenancy rights cannot be claimed under the Kerala Buildings Act if the agreement is commercial and default of rent is established.
Headnote:(A) Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 - Section 13 - Writ petition seeking direction to conduct an enquiry into cut off amenities by landlord - The tenant claims non-payment of rent does not affect tenancy rights - Authorities found premises to be commercial, dismissing tenant's claims. (Paras 1-13)
(B) Jurisdiction of Accommodation Controller - The court found no illegality in controller's and appellate authority’s dismissive orders based on appeal proceedings and tenancy default. (Paras 10-12)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner entered into a rental agreement for commercial use but faced forced eviction. The amenities were cut off; the Controller rejected the complaint citing commercial occupancy.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the orders of Accommodation Controller and Appellate Authority, confirming the commercial nature of the agreement and tenant's claim of illegal eviction.
Issues: Whether the tenant had valid rights despite default in rent and if amenities were unlawfully cut off.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled highlights the primacy of commercial agreements and the tenant's failure to prove illegal acts of the landlord as valid defense.
Result: The writ petition is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner claims illegal eviction and cut amenities. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. counter-argument regarding commercial occupancy. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 3. court discusses validity of tenant's claims. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. conclusion of the court regarding merit of the writ. (Para 13) |
J U D G M E N T
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The petitioner, who along with his brother had entered into a rental agreement with the father-in-law of the 1st respondent, has filed this writ petition seeking to direct the 2nd respondent-Accommodation Controller to conduct a proper enquiry under Section 13 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act , 1965 and pass orders after ascertaining whether the aminities enjoyed by the petitioner were cut off or withheld without just or sufficient cause.
2. The petitioner states that the rental agreement contemplated ₹1,000/- as monthly rent and ₹13,000/- as advance. The premises was used for manufacturing icecream and as accommodation. The rent was periodically enhanced and the advance deposit was increased to ₹25,000/-.
3. The 1st respondent, however, wanted to evict the petitioner forcibly. The petitioner hence filed OS No.495/2023 before the Munsiff's Court, Chavakkad. The Munsiff's Court has granted interim injunction restraining the defendant from forcibly evicting the petitioner. Meanwhile, the 1st respondent filed RCP No.66/2023 seeking to evict the petitioner on the ground of bona fide requirement.
4. Now, the 1st respondent has cut off essential amenities to the building. Access to water supply, electricity connection, washroom and latrine are denied to the petitioner. The door to the terrace is also locked. The petitioner therefore filed a complaint before the Accommodation Controller, Chavakkad. The 2nd respondent-Accommodation Controller rejected the application.
5. The 2nd respondent, in his order, observed that premises was intended only for commercial purpose. Aggrieved by Ext.P5 order of the Accommodation Controller, the petitioner filed Ext.P6 appeal. The 3rd respondent- appellate authority dismissed the appeal by Ext.P7 order based on the alleged failure of the petitioner to renew the agreement.
6. The petitioner states that Exts.P5 and P7 are illegal and arbitrary. Respondents 1 and 2 failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in them. The petitioner is in continued possession and is a tenant under the Act. The authorities have failed to recognise that as a tenant, the petitioner is entitled to protection under the Act and his tenancy does not cease to exist on non-payment of rent alone.
7. The 1st respondent filed a counter affidavit. The 1st respondent stated that the petitioner is permitted to do icecream sale alone in the rented premises. No icecream manufacturing unit is functioning in the premises. The petitioner is not having a valid licence for icecream manufacturing. The rented shoproom is having commercial occupancy only. The 1st respondent has not disconnected amenities in the rental shoproom. There is no water connection to the rental shoproom. The petitioner is using electricity without any interruption. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent and the learned Government Pleader representing respondents 2 and 3.
9. The petitioner states that he is a tenant of the shoproom belonging to the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent wanted to evict the petitioner forcibly from the building. Therefore, the petitioner filed OS No.495/2023 before the Munsiff Court, Chavakkad and secured Ext.P2 injunction order. The pleadings would disclose that the 1st respondent has also filed RCP No.66/2023 for eviction of the petitioner under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act , 1965. The petitioner would allege that water connection and electricity connection have been cut off by the 1st respondent-landlord and access to washroom and terrace is den
