Back
2013 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 36237
KERALA HIGH COURT
*K. T. Sankaran, M. L. Joseph Francis, JJ.
Cannanore Drug House (M/s.) Kannur v. Cheriya Melat Abdul Azeez
R.C.P.No.37 of 2005 | R.C.A.No.149 of 2006
Important Points
Subject
Property Law - Tenancy and Rent Control
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Lease - Unregistered agreement considerations - Court elucidated that an unregistered lease deed cannot establish or influence claims of rights but may be examined for collateral purposes, such as possession nature. Evidence regarding landlord's son's intentions deemed sufficient despite absence of certain documentation. (Paras 7-8)
Facts of the case:
Landlord applied for eviction on the basis that his son required a space for a clinic upon returning from studies abroad. Tenant argued that the petition was premature, citing an unexpired lease term and landlord's other properties.
Findings of Court:
The court concluded the landlord’s claim of bona fide need was established while tenant's objections were unsupported. Tenant granted a 6-month grace period to vacate premises with conditions on rent payments.
Issues: The questions of bona fide need for eviction and the admissibility of unregistered lease agreements.
Ratio Decidendi: The appellate court affirmed the genuine need of the landlord for independent reasons, emphasizing the tenant didn’t prove their claims of landlord's non-genuine needs or alternative housing.
Result: Rent Control Revision dismissed, with a conditional time granted for vacating the premises.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. establishing the context of the tenancy and the basis for eviction by the landlord. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. review of tenant's arguments against eviction and court's rejection of the premature claim. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. affirmation of the genuine need for eviction supported by judicial precedents. (Para 9) |
| 4. conclusion and granting of time for tenant to vacate premises. (Para 10) |
1.The tenant in R.C.P.No.37 of 2005 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Kannur, who was the respondent in R.C.A.No.149 of 2006 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thalassery, is the revision petitioner. The respondent / landlord filed the Rent Control Petition under S.11(3) and S.11(4)(iii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act .
2. The petition schedule building is situated in second floor of the building owned by the landlord. In the ground floor of the building, Dena Bank is the tenant. In the first floor, M/s.Cannanore Drug Lines, a partnership firm who is the tenant in R.C.P.No.35 of 2005 from which R.C.R.No.287 of 2012 arose, is the tenant. The building is situated in the heart of Kannur town.
3. The petition schedule building (second floor) was rented out to the tenant as per Ext. A1 agreement dated 15.1.2000. The agreement is an unregistered agreement. The lease is for a term of five years. There is a renewal clause in the document on condition of enhancement of rent by 25%.
4. The bona fide need put forward by the landlord is that the building is required for the occupation of his son Dr.Makthoum who was undergoing his higher studies in London at the relevant time. It was alleged that the son of the landlord wanted to start a clinic in the petition schedule building. The tenant contended that the bona fide need put forward by the landlord is not genuine. According to the tenant, the tenancy commenced in 1978 and subsequently, Ext. A1 lease deed was executed. Based on the renewal clause in Ext. A1 lease deed, the tenant paid enhanced rent in the bank account of the landlord and the landlord received the same. Therefore, there is a renewal of the term of the lease deed. The tenant contended that the Rent Control Petition is, therefore, premature, since the term of the lease would expire only on 31.12.2010. It was also contended that the son of the landlord is settled abroad and he is not depending on the landlord. The tenant also raised a contention that the landlord is having other buildings and, therefore, the first proviso to S.11(3) is attracted. It was also contended that the tenant is entitled to the protection under the second proviso to S.11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act .
5. The Rent Control Court dismissed the Rent Control Petition on both the grounds. The landlord filed appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority. However, the landlord did not press the ground of eviction under S.11(4)(iii) of the Act. The Appellate Authority found that the bona fide need put forward by the landlord under S.11(3) is genuine, that the Rent Control Petition is not hit by the first proviso to S.11(3) of the Act and that the tenant has failed to prove the ingredients of the second proviso to S.11(3) of the Act.
6. The contention put forward by the tenant that the term of the lease has not expired and, therefore, the Rent Control Petition was prematurely filed was negatived by the Appellate Authority holding that Ext. A1 is not admissible in evidence as the agreement was unregistered. It was also held that Ext. A1 cannot be used for the purpose of proving the term of lease as the said purpose cannot be said to be a collateral purpose for the purpose of enabling the parties to make use of an unregistered agreement. The Appellate Authority noticed the grounds on which the Rent Control Court rejected the application under S.11(3) and answered each and every point in the following manner in paragraphs 10 to 16 of the judgment. For the sake of convenience, paragraphs 10 to 16 o
