A cooperative society, when recognized as a separate legal entity, must be included in eviction proceedings for decrees to be binding upon it, and its acceptance of rent establishes its status as a tenant.

JUDGMENT

Appellant, faced with eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Proceedings, resisted the eviction by filing a claim petition under Order XXI Rule 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure , 1908 (CPC). The obstruction was raised by the claim petitioner/appellant on the ground that the decree in R.C.P No.38/2020, is not binding upon it.

2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows:

2.1. The appellant/claim petitioner is a co-operative society represented by the Secretary. The 2^nd respondent entered into an agreement on 01.10.2018 with the 1^st respondent – landlord, seeking to take the petition schedule building on a monthly rent for the purpose of running the co- operative society. In the agreement itself, it is specifically mentioned that the rent due in respect of the petition schedule building shall be paid by the co-operative society. It appears that the rent was paid by the claim petitioner – society from its account directly to the account of the landlord. Later, the landlord filed an application for evicting the tenant from the premises under various grounds, as provided under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act , 1965. Curiously, the society was not made a party to the proceedings, but it was the 2^nd respondent, who contested the case. The 2^nd respondent raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the rent control petition, since the landlord had not impleaded the original tenant, namely the co-operative society, in the party array. Be that as it may, it appears that in the rent control petition, an agreement was entered into between the parties, wherein it was agreed that the petition schedule building will be surrendered within a period of two years.

2.2. The present dispute stems out of the execution of a compromise agreement dated 18.07.2022. As per the agreement, the co-operative society was required to vacate the premises within a specified period, failing which, the landlord was given liberty to execute the same by due process of law. On expiry of the period mentioned in the agreement, the landlord initiated execution proceedings to get vacant possession of the plaint schedule building. At this point of time, the appellant filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority against the order of eviction and since it failed to secure an interim order, approached this Court in O.P.(RC) No.84/2025. By Judgment dated 10.04.2025, a Division Bench of this Court granted liberty to the appellant to raise objection to the execution petition in a claim under Order 21 Rule 99 of CPC and accordingly, the claim petition was preferred stating that, the decree passed in R.C.P No.38/2020 is not binding upon the appellant.

2.3. On behalf of the claim petitioner, Exts.A1 to A7 documents were produced and PW1 was examined. On behalf of the landlord, Exts.B1, B1(a) and B2 documents were produced. No oral evidence adduced on the side of the landlord. The execution court, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the claim petition is not maintainable inasmuch as the co-operative society was actively involved in the proceedings and that it was aware of the rent control proceedings by the landlord and therefore, it had the knowledge of the order of eviction and therefore, rejected the claim petition. Aggrieved, the claim petitioner preferred A.S.No.74/2025, which was also dismissed and hence, the present appeal.

3. Heard, Adv.Nisha George – learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Adv.S.V.Balakrishna Iyyer, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Adv.P.B.Subramanyan, appearing for the 1^st respondent. None appeared for the 2^nd res