Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 188 (KER)

G. SADAVISAN NAIR v. A. RAJENDRAN NAIR

2017-01-24

C.K.ABDUL REHIM, SHIRCY V.

body2017
ORDER : 1. The revision petitioner is the tenant/respondent in R.C.P. No. 1/2013 on the files of the Rent Control Court, Mavelikkara. The respondents/land lords had filed the Rent Control Petition for eviction of the tenant from the tenanted premises under Section 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Building Lease and Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short). The case of the respondents is that the building bearing No. MMC 14/243 (old number 19/156) is under their joint ownership and possession. The same was rented out to the revision petitioner excluding the two rooms on the southern side of the aforesaid building for a period of 11 months in the year 2003 on a monthly rent of Rs. 1000/-. Thereafter the lease period was extended for 11 months on executing fresh rent deeds. But the petitioner kept the rent in arrears from May 2012. The petitioner is the brother of the second respondent. Now the first respondent who was in Gulf had returned and he requested the building to start a diary farm for his livelihood. Despite notice demanding eviction on the ground of arrears of rent and bona fide need for starting the diary farm for the respondents, the petitioner did not vacate and hence the eviction petition was filed. The petitioner had contended that the need urged by the respondents are absolutely false and it was only a ruse for eviction. It was further contended that there was no landlord tenant relationship pertaining to the building as alleged and actually he is a co-owner of the building and the respondents had forged documents and filed the petition raising untenable contentions. Actually, on 23.5.2013 he got reliable information that the respondents 1 and 2 influenced his father and fraudulently created the document in their favor. In fact no rent deeds had been executed as alleged. The further contention raised was that the second respondent had actually received an amount of Rs. 10,50,000/- for her personal requirements but failed to return the same and when the amount was demanded, this false case had been cooked up by the respondents. With all these contentions he resisted the rent control petition for eviction. The Rent Controller after meticulous evaluation of the evidence adduced ordered eviction under Section 11(2)(b) as well under Section 11(3). The said order was confirmed by the Appellate Authority in R.C.A. No. 3/2015. With all these contentions he resisted the rent control petition for eviction. The Rent Controller after meticulous evaluation of the evidence adduced ordered eviction under Section 11(2)(b) as well under Section 11(3). The said order was confirmed by the Appellate Authority in R.C.A. No. 3/2015. The order of the appellate authority is assailed in this revision petition contending that the order is illegal, irregular and improper. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 3. Under Section 20 of the Act the power of the revisional court is very limited and only if the order is illegal, irregular or improper the revisional court has power to interfere. 4. The revision petitioner is none other than the brother of the second respondent. Exts.A1 to A8 and A12 are the rent deeds relied on by the respondents to prove that the petitioner herein had executed rent deeds even though at the time of entrustment of the building in the year 2003 no rent deed was executed. So also the respondents have produced Ext.A23 partition deed, A24 gift deed and A25 sale deed to prove their title over the property as well as to discard the contention raised by the petitioner that he is also a co-owner of the building. Ext.A23 is a partition deed executed in the family of the second respondent and the petitioner. It was executed between one Saraswathy Pillai, Hymavathy Pillai, Sadasivan Pillai and Sathiyamma effecting partition of the family property along with the minor children. The petitioner is the third party to the partition deed. The second respondent then a minor was represented by her mother. By executing Ext.A23 partition deed the entire property had been partitioned and separate shares were allotted to the shareholders and the share holders have obtained individual shares. The person who obtained item No. 1 in Ext.A23 transferred the same to one Unnikrishnan Nair by Ext.A24 and he alienated the property to the respondents as per Ext.A25 sale deed. Thus the respondents have title over the tenanted premises and by executing the rent deeds by the petitioner, he was put in possession of the tenanted premises as a tenant for his residential purpose. The Rent Control Court as well the Appellate Authority have found that the execution of these rent deeds are genuine and there is nothing available to suspect the validity of those documents. The Rent Control Court as well the Appellate Authority have found that the execution of these rent deeds are genuine and there is nothing available to suspect the validity of those documents. The rent deeds were proved through PW-2 (document writer) and PW-3 (scribe). Ext.A9 is admittedly an application submitted by the petitioner before the Secretary of Mavelikkara Municipality for a residential certificate as the tenant of the building to secure a ration card. The Rent Control Court as well the Appellate Authority found the genuineness of the document and accepted the same as the application submitted by the petitioner himself asserting as the tenant of the tenanted premises, submitted before the Municipal Authorities for residential certificate. Ext.X2 (a) is the report submitted by the revenue authorities to the effect that the tenanted premises stands in the name of the first respondent and the petitioner is the tenant of the same. A favorable report had been given by the Revenue Inspector recommending to issue residential certificate to the petitioner as the tenant of the tenanted premises so as to obtain a ration card. PW4 the Secretary of Mavelikkara Municipality had admitted the production of Ext.A10 rent deed before the authorities to prove his residence as a tenant in the tenanted premises for issuance of the certificate. So all the documents before the Rent Control Court would substantiate the fact that the respondents are the landlords of the building and the petitioner is a tenant and not a co-owner as claimed by him and the denial of title raised by him was without any bona fides. It is well settled that mere denial of title of the landlord is not enough to exclude from the purview of the Rent Control Court. Prima facie the Rent control Court has to satisfy that there is bona fide denial of title and then only the Rent Controller has to look into the validity of the claim and record a finding that the denial is bona-fide. 5. According to the respondents, the petitioner had kept the rent in arrears from June, 2001 to March, 2013. Despite Ext.A3 notice, the rent was not cleared by him. So, the learned Rent Controller ordered eviction under Section 11(2)(b) of the Act which was confirmed by the learned Appellate Authority. 5. According to the respondents, the petitioner had kept the rent in arrears from June, 2001 to March, 2013. Despite Ext.A3 notice, the rent was not cleared by him. So, the learned Rent Controller ordered eviction under Section 11(2)(b) of the Act which was confirmed by the learned Appellate Authority. So also the respondents require the building for their bona fide need to start a farm house for the 1st respondent, who had returned from Gulf and presently unemployed. The evidence adduced by the respondents was quite convincing and hence the learned Rent Controller ordered eviction of the tenanted premises for the bona fide requirement of the respondents. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that vast extend of property is lying vacant and if the respondents' desire, is genuine they can very well start the dairy farm in that vacant land. On a perusal of the evidence, it could be seen that the learned Rent Controller meticulously evaluated the evidence adduced by the parties and found that the desire of the respondents to start a dairy farm in the tenanted premises to earn money for the livelihood of the 1st respondent as he is unemployed after his return from Gulf was found genuine and thus ordered eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act. The learned Appellate Authority has also found that the desire of the respondents to start dairy farm on the tenanted building appears to be genuine on the basis of the evidence adduced by them and confirmed the order of eviction also under Section 11( 3) of the Act. 6. On a perusal of the records, we are fully satisfied that both the learned Rent Controller as well the learned Appellate Authority had evaluated each and every aspect involved in the matter meticulously and ordered eviction as requested by the respondents. We find absolutely no illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the order under challenge before us. 7. But considering the fact that the parties are close relatives, we find it just and proper to grant time of six months to the tenant, from today to vacate the premises, subject to following conditions: (i) The tenant shall file an affidavit before the Rent Control Court within a month from today unconditionally undertaking to vacate the premises within a period of six months from today. (ii) The tenant shall pay/deposit the upto date arrears of rent within one month from today and shall continue to pay the rent/occupation charges at the agreed rate, till the date of vacating of the premises. (iii) If the tenant commits breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, the relief granted to him as per this order will stand vacated. The Revision Petition is disposed of accordingly.