The Rent Control Court must determine landlord-tenant relationships based on documented agreements, binding findings in subsequent proceedings.

JUDGMENT SOUMEN SEN, C.J .

Heard Mr. Saji Varghese, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P. Santhalingam, learned Senior Advocate instructed by Mr. Abraham K. George, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The respondent in the eviction proceedings is the petitioner herein. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Additional Munsiff Rent Controller in R.C.P. No. 183 of 2024, wherein it was held that the relationship between the parties is that of landlord and tenant. While arriving at the said finding, the learned Rent Control Court placed reliance upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Associated Hotels v. R.N. Kapoor¹ Beena v. Ramachandra Rao ² and the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Velayudhan Nair v. Young Mens Christian Association³

3. The first question that arises for consideration is

1 AIR 1959 SC 1262

2 (2004) 3 SCC 595

3 2016 (2) KHC 640

whether the learned Rent Control Court could have at all proceeded to adjudicate upon the issue of existence of a landlord–tenant relationship when, in paragraph No. 3 of the statement of facts, it has been specifically pleaded that the relationship between Grace Cherian and Suresh Babu is governed by a licence agreement dated 16.12.2019. It is submitted that though paragraph No. 3 of the statement of facts refers to payment of monthly rent under the licence agreement, the renewal licence agreement dated 24.12.2020 does not describe the respondent as a tenant and there has been no mention of any licence fee. It is further submitted that the renewal licence agreement dated 24.12.2020 describes the parties as “Licensor” and “Licensee”. The amount payable for occupation and enjoyment of the premises is expressly termed as “licence fee”, and the nomenclature of the agreement is as a “Licence Deed”. 4. In the first place, while entertaining the said petition, the Rent Control Court could not have exercised jurisdiction, as the Rent Control Court is competent to decide only disputes between a landlord and a tenant. However, in the said proceedings, the present petitioner, in his objection, has specifically highlighted that the relationship between the parties is not that of landlord and tenant. In our view, this objection ought to have been accepted on the basis of a plain reading of the claim petition itself, which describes the respondent (the present petitioner) as a “licensee”. The licence agreement dated 16.12.2019 is produced before this Court for the purpose of consideration as to whether the said agreement makes any mention of a monthly rent as opposed to a licence fee. The Rent Control Court has proceeded on the basis that the landlord has raised a claim for eviction. It is elementary that the Court will exercise jurisdiction only on the basis of the pleadings made by the claimant. If the claimant contends that the licence agreement is the foundation of the relationship, but in the eviction proceedings, asserts that a landlord–tenant relationship exists, the Rent Control Court is required to first ascertain whether, on the basis of the averments and documents presented, it can entertain and accept the said petition.

5. In the statement of facts, it was not even contended that, although the agreement was described as one of licensor and licensee, and a licence fee was mentioned, in reality the relationship was governed by the provisions of the Rent Control Act. However, by the time the matter was being considered by the Rent Control Court, the present petitioner had filed his written objections in the suit earlier instituted by Grace Cherian for eviction of the respondent on the ground of revocation of the licence in which, in the counter statement, Suresh Babu has taken the plea that he is, in effect, a tenant and not a licensee.

6. The eviction of a licensee and eviction of a tenant arise on entirely different legal grounds. In the case o