Back
2016 Supreme(Online)(KER) 27709
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
B.KEMAL PASHA, J
C.PRABHAKARAN, SECRETARY, NEW MAHE GRAMA – Appellant
Versus
T.P.MOHANAKRISHNAN AND ANOTHER – Respondent
CRL.A/137/2009
SRI.R.SURENDRAN, SRI.P.A.JACOB, SRI.SINU G. NATH, SMT.NAMITHA JYOTHISH, SRI.K.KUNHIKRISHNAN
Possession of property coupled with failure to disprove liability for rent establishes liability, irrespective of minor errors in tenancy agreements.
Headnote:
Panchayat - Rent Arrears - Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 - Section 210; Kerala Panchayat Raj (Taxation, Levy and Appeal) Rules, 1996 - Rule 27 - The court grappled with the validity of the acquittal concerning rent arrears owed by a tenant to a local Panchayat, highlighting the necessity for evidence against the assertion of liability when possession is admitted.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, Secretary of New Mahe Grama Panchayat, appealed against an acquittal for rent arrears owed by a tenant who admitted possession but denied liability to pay rent despite formal notices and attempts at recovery.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed that the lower court's acquittal on a minor correction in the rent agreement was illogical, emphasizing the defendant's burden to prove non-liability and confirming the substantiated claim of ₹7,654/- due to the Panchayat.
Issues: Whether the lower court's acquittal was justified given the admission of possession by the tenant and the evidence of rent arrears owed to the Grama Panchayat.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the lower court erred in acquitting based on a minor error in the agreement, reiterating that possession admission obligates the tenant to provide evidence against claims for non-payment of rent.
Final Decision: The judgment of acquittal was set aside, and the accused was found guilty and ordered to pay the outstanding rent along with penalties.
J U D G M E N T
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Appellant is the Secretary of the New Mahe Grama Panchayat, who has come up in appeal by challenging the judgment of acquittal passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Thalassery in STC No.3209/2004. The case before the court below is as a result of a private complaint filed by the appellant herein as complainant against the 1st respondent herein as accused, alleging offence punishable under Section 210 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 .
2. The 1st respondent was a tenant in respect of room No.VIII-1/I of New Mahe Grama Panchayat, which was taken on rent by him on a monthly rent of ₹1,010/- and on executing an agreement to that effect. The 1st respondent had committed arrears of rent for the period from 01.04.2003 to 31.10.2003. Despite demand notices and revenue recovery proceedings, the amount remained unpaid. Even though attachment proceedings were initiated, nothing could be attached, as no movables belong to the 1st respondent could be traced out.
3. The court below had taken cognizance of the offence. On the side of the complainant, PWs 1 to 3 were examined, and Exts.P1 to P6 were marked. The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He has admitted his possession of the room of the Panchayat. At the same time, he denied the liability to pay rent. No defence evidence was adduced.
4. The court below, through the impugned judgment, found that there was a correction in one of the dates contained in Ext.P1 agreement. According to the court below, the date 31.03.2002 was corrected as 30.09.2003. It was on that ground, the court below has acquitted the accused under Section 255 (1) Cr.P.C. even when the possession of the room by the accused was admitted by the accused.
5. Admittedly, the said room belongs to the Panchayat. The same was taken on rent by the 1st respondent. An amount of ₹7,654/- being the arrears of the rent was claimed by the Panchayat from the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent has admitted the tenancy arrangement. At the same time, he has denied his liability to pay the arrears of rent. Even in such a case, it seems that the court below has taken a strange decision to acquit the accused on the ground that there is a correction contained in the date in the agreement. When the possession of the accused over the room belongs to the Panchayat is admitted, even if there is any correction in the date, it is of no consequence at all. When the liability of the 1st respondent to pay the rent has been denied by him, it is for him to adduce evidence to show that he had no liability to pay the rent. In such a context, the aquittal passed by the court below, through the impugned judgment, is per se illegal. The court below ought not to have acquitted the 1st respondent by showing such flimsy reasons. The evidence clearly shows that an amount of ₹7,654/- was due to the Grama Panchayat from the 1st respondent. When public money is involved, the court below ought to have been more vigilant to protect the interest of the public. The acquittal passed by the court below has resulted in substantial miscarriage of justice, when the criminal liability under Section 210 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 , clearly stands proved. Therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be reversed. The acquittal passed by the court below is devoid of merits and the court below ought to have convicted and sentenced the accused appropriately.
In the result, this Criminal Appeal is allowed and the judgment of acquittal passed by the court below is set aside. The 1st respondent/accused is found guilty of the offence under Section 210 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 read with Rule 27 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Taxation, Levy and Appeal) Rules, 1996 . The 1st respondent/accused is hereby ordered to pay an amount of `10,000/- being arrears of rent of `7,654/- and the warrant fee and other expenses incurred by the Grama Panchayat. He is further sentenced to pay a fine of `7,654/-, in
