2009 Supreme(Online)(KER) 35087
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ
ABU SALI – Appellant
Versus
MOHAMMED ABDUL KHADER – Respondent
RENT CONTROL REVISION 132/2009
A tenant's denial of a landlord's title must be bona fide; failure to establish this can result in eviction under the Rent Control Act.
Headnote:
Eviction - Tenancy - Rent Control Act - Sections 11, 20, 26 - The court examined the grounds for eviction under the Rent Control Act, specifically addressing arrears of rent and the need for reconstruction, validating the landlord's claim and rejecting tenants' arguments regarding denial of title and adverse possession.
Fact of the Case:
The tenants challenged eviction orders based on arrears of rent and a claim of reconstruction by the landlord. They denied the landlord's title and asserted a claim of ownership through adverse possession.
Issues: Whether the tenants' denial of the landlord's title was bona fide and whether the grounds for eviction based on rent arrears and reconstruction were justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The Rent Control Court properly evaluated the evidence and found that the landlord's claims were supported, and the tenants did not demonstrate a bona fide challenge to the landlord’s title.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition and upheld the eviction orders.
ORDER
Pius C. Kuriakose, J The tenants are challenging in this revision petition the orders of eviction concurrently passed against them by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority on the grounds of Sub Section 2 of Section 11 (arrears of rent) and clause 4 of Sub Section 4 of Section 11 (re-construction). Even though, the landlord sought for eviction on the ground of subletting also, that ground no longer survives in these proceedings.
2. The contentions which were prominently and seriously raised by the revision petitioners in answer to the eviction petition filed by the respondents was that they denied title of the landlords bona fide. It was contended that they have by long and uninterrupted possession in open denial of the real owner's title prescribed a title for themselves by adverse possession and limitation. The allegation regarding arrears of rent was denied as a sequel of their contention that there is no landlord-tenant relationship between them and the petitioner in the RCP. The bona fides of the need for requirement of re-construction was also denied in the statement of objection filed by the revision petitioners. But when we scan the statement of objections filed by the revision petitioners, it is seen that they have given more thrust to their contention that the landlord does not have title and that it is they who are having present title due to adverse possession and limitation. The evidence adduced at the stage of trial before the Rent Control Court consisted of Exts.A1 to A20 and oral testimonies of PWs.1 to 5 on the side of the landlords. On the side of the revision petitioners/tenants the same consisted of Exts.B1 to B6 and the testimony of CPW1 and CPW2. The Advocate Commissioner's Report and plan were respectively marked as Exts.C1 and C1(a). The Rent Control Court on an appreciation of the evidence in the case formulated the requisite points including the first point as to whether the denial of title raised by the tenant is bona fide ? The Rent Control Court did not consider the first point as a preliminary point. Instead that point was considered after trial along with the other points and answering the first point, it was held that the denial of title is not bona fide. It was also held that there is landlord-
tenant relationship between the parties and that the Rent Control Petition is maintainable. In the light of that finding the case of the landlord in the context of the ground of arrears of rent was accepted by the Rent Control Court and it was found that rent is in arrears at the rate of Rs.35/- from 2002 onwards.
3. Coming to the ground of requirement of re-
construction, it was found on the basis of the Commissioner's Report and the oral evidence of PW1 and PW2 that the building is old fashioned and dilapidated and hence, its condition warrants re- construction. It was also found that the landlord is in possession of a valid building plan and permit authorising to carry out re-construction not only of the petition schedule building, but also of building having Door No.38/1930 in which the petitioner/landlord is carrying on business in vessels. The landlords version that he is possessed of financial ability for carrying out the re-construction was also accepted by the Rent Control Court since it was found that there was no challenge regarding that version in cross examination. Accordingly, the Rent Control Court ordered eviction on the grounds of arrears of rent as well as re- construction. The Rent Control Appellate Authority would concur all the conclusions of the Rent Control Court and confirmed the order of eviction.
4. We have heard the submissions of Sri.K.S.Hariharaputhran, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Sri.P.Gopalakrishnan Nair, learned counsel for the respondent. After hearing the learned counsel for some time, we directed the learned counsel for the landlord to make available for our perusal the certified copies of the Property Tax Assessment Register pe