Back
2016 Supreme(Online)(KER) 15865
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
K.T.SANKARAN, A.M.BABU, JJ
ARJUN – Appellant
Versus
P MARIYAM – Respondent
OP (RENT CONTROL) 129/2016
Fraud on court vitiates all proceedings; however, without substantial proof, eviction orders remain enforceable.
Headnote:
Eviction - Tenancy - Act 2 of 1965, Section 11(4)(v); CPC, Sections 47 and 151 - The court interpreted provisions allowing eviction for cessation of occupation and assessed fraudulent claims by tenants, ruling against their application to set aside previous orders.
Fact of the Case:
Tenants sought to contest eviction orders based on alleged discrepancies in property measurements, claiming fraud by landlords. They filed an application to set aside eviction orders after failing to vacate the premises as instructed by the court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no merit in the tenants' claims of fraud, as the measurements did not fundamentally alter the identity of the property in question. Previous orders were thus upheld, affirming the landlords' right to possession.
Issues: Whether the tenants could demonstrate fraud on the court that would invalidate the eviction order.
Ratio Decidendi: An order obtained through fraud is a nullity; however, the tenants failed to prove any instance of fraud related to the court's prior decisions.
Final Decision: The Original Petition is dismissed, and the petitioners are ordered to pay Rs.10,000/- as costs.
JUDGMENT
A.M.Babu, J.
1.Petitioners are tenants. Respondents are the landlords. They sought eviction of the tenants under Section 11(4)(v) of Act 2 of 1965. The Rent Control Court, Koyilandi allowed R.C.P.7 of 2010. The tenants were directed to put the landlords in possession of the tenanted premises. The appeal of the tenants, R.C.A.83 of 2013, was dismissed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kozhikode. This Court dismissed R.C.R.165 of 2015, but granted time to the tenants to vacate. The time initially granted was extended by this Court.
2.It appears that E.P.122 of 2013 was kept in abeyance by the Munsiff's Court, Koyilandi in view of the time granted by this Court to the tenants to vacate. The tenants did not vacate even after the expiry of the extended period. Therefore the landlords sought delivery of possession of the building. The learned Munsiff directed to deliver possession of the building to the landlords on or before 15.7.2016. The tenants filed E.A.145 of 2016. It was filed under Sections 47 and 151 of the CPC. The request to the executing court was to set aside the order of the Rent Control Court, the judgment of the Appellate Authority and the order of this Court in revision. The tenants alleged that the landlords played fraud on court to get the prayer for eviction allowed.
3.Petitioners/tenants alleged as under in their application, E.A.145 of 2016: The room shown in the 'A' schedule to their application was rented out to their predecessor-in-title by the respondents/landlords. The 'B' schedule to the application is the property shown in the schedules to the rent control petition and the execution petition. The said 'B' schedule property was never in the possession of the petitioners/tenants. The respondents/landlords cannot get the 'A' schedule property delivered to them in execution of the order of eviction passed in the rent control proceedings. The measurements of the 'A' schedule property do not tally with the measurements of the 'B' schedule property. The respondents cheated the petitioners and played fraud on court to obtain the order of eviction. The orders and judgment so obtained are liable to be set aside.
4.Respondents/landlords raised the following contentions: The building shown in the 'A' schedule is the building shown in the 'B' schedule too. A minor discrepancy in the measurement is made use of to prepare the 'A' schedule. One and the same door number is shown in the 'A' schedule, the 'B' schedule, the schedule to the rent control petition and the schedule to the rent deed. The petitioners did not dispute the identity of the tenanted building in the trial Court, the Appellate Authority and the High Court. E.A.145 of 2016 is filed only with the intention to drag the execution proceedings.
5.Holding it to be devoid of merit, the learned Munsiff dismissed E.A.145 of 2016. He said he could see no element of fraud in obtaining the order of eviction by the landlords. The learned Munsiff stated that the application was filed by the petitioners with a view to harass the respondents and to drag the execution proceedings. According to the learned Munsiff, such an application is an abuse of the process of the Court.
6.Heard the learned counsel on both sides.
Perused the order of the learned Munsiff in E.A.145 of 2016.
7.Fraud on court vitiates everything. An order obtained by practising fraud on Court is a nullity (Vide Ram Chandra Singh v. Savitri Devi (2003) 8 SCC 319 ). Such an order cannot be executed. Did the respondents commit fraud on court to obtain the order of eviction against the petitioners? That is the question.
8.To call it a fraud, the petitioners highlight the measurements of the tenanted premises. They allege that the measurements of the room shown in the schedule to the rent control petition do not tally with the measurements of the room in their possession. The petitioners have appended to their application two schedules, namely, 'A' and 'B'. The learned Munsiff has shown the meas
