IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RCRev..No. 133 of 2008()
1. FRANCIS, AGED 46,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STEPHEN, AGED 50,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :FRANCIS, PARTY-IN-PERSON
For Respondent :SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :17/06/2008
O R D E R
P.R.Raman &
T.R. Ramachandran Nair, JJ.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
R.C.R. No. 133 of 2008
- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 17th day of June, 2008.
O R D E R
Ramachandran Nair, J.
The tenant in a rent control proceedings, R.C.P.NO.89/2001 is the
revision petitioner herein. The Rent Control Court ordered eviction under
Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act (for short
‘the Act’). The appellate authority as per the impugned judgment, granted
eviction under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act.
2. The landlord sought eviction on the grounds of arrears of rent as
well as bonafide need for his own occupation for conducting furniture
business. It was pleaded that the tenant took the petition schedule room on
lease after executing a rent chit on 1.10.1996. He was conducting a
furniture shop in the petition schedule room. The rent is in arrears from
1.7.1997 onwards. These, in a nutshell, are the contentions raised by the
landlord in the petition for eviction.
3. The tenant mainly contended that he has not executed any rent
chit; there was no landlord-tenant relationship and that he had never taken
RCR 133/2008 -2-
the petition schedule room on lease for conducting furniture business. He
denied the allegation that he had been conducting a furniture shop in the
petition schedule room. The tenant further contended that the landlord
agreed to construct a building in his property for giving it on lease to him
and towards the expenses for construction, he received an amount of
Rs.1,25,000/- from the tenant. Stating the above contentions, an agreement
was executed on 1.10.1996 which is not at all a rent chit. There was total
failure on the part of the landlord in complying with the conditions of the
agreement. He never completed the building and did not give it to the
tenant. The tenant had to file O.S.No.148/1998 and a further criminal
complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court under Sections
417 and 420 I.P.C. against the landlord for his failure to comply with the
conditions of the agreement.
4. The Rent Control Court raised a specific point whether there is any
landlord-tenant relationship between the parties. The landlord examined
P.Ws.1 to 3 and marked Exts.A1 to A14 documents in evidence. The
petitioner herein was examined as R.W.1 and produced Exts.B1 to B6 on
his side. Exts.X1 to X3 were marked through other witnesses.
5. The Rent Control Court, after analysing the oral and documentary
evidence, found that there is landlord-tenant relationship between the
parties. As regards the ground under Section 11(2)(b) of the Act, it was
found that the exact date from which the rent is in arrears is not evident.
RCR 133/2008 -3-
Hence, that point was decided against the landlord. The Rent Control Court
also found in favour of the landlord on the ground raised under Section 11
(3) of the Act.
6. The petitioner appeared in person and reiterated his contentions
before us. The respondent appeared on caveat and we heard Shri Santhosh
P. Poduval, learned counsel for the respondent. The petitioner contended
that both the authorities below acted perversely in treating the agreement
dated 1.10.1996 as an evidence for the rental arrangement between the
parties and further creating a landlord-tenant relationship between them. It
is pointed out that at any rate, the same can be treated only as an agreement
and thus, the controversy, if at all, has to go outside the jurisdiction of
the Rent Control Court, since he was not at all a tenant covered by the
provisions of the Act. It is pointed out that he never conducted any
furniture business in the petition schedule room and he had no liability
towards arrears of rent also. It was contended that the landlord failed in
completing the construction as agreed. It is pointed out that the findings
rendered by both the authorities on this aspect is without reference to the
evidence available before them and thus it warrants interference at the hands
of this court.
7. The Rent Control Court, on an analysis of the oral and
documentary evidence, found that even though Ext.A1 is not a rent chit, it is
evident from the same that the landlord agreed to give a room on lease to
RCR 133/2008 -4-
the tenant for a monthly rent of Rs.1,500/-. The reasoning adopted by that
court shows the following: The main dispute raised by the tenant is that the
construction work was not completed within the stipulated time provided in
Ext.A1. It is also alleged that there were violations of Building Rules and
this led to the room being not numbered or electrified. Ext.A2 is the copy
of the plaint in O.S.No.148/1998 filed by the petitioner herein against the
landlord. The landlord relied upon Exts.A4 and A5 tax receipts, Ext.A6
letter and Ext.A7 ownership certificate issued by the Secretary, Cherpu
Grama Panchayat to show that the schedule room was numbered as
III/191A. Exts.A8 and A9 are the building tax receipts. All these
cumulatively show that the construction was over during 1997 itself. In
Ext.A2 the petitioner had admitted that the work relating to the building was
completed in the middle of April 1997 and that the petitioner had stocked
furniture in the petition schedule room. Therefore, it is clear that the
respondent is the owner of the room and the petitioner herein has been
inducted as tenant by which a landlord-tenant relationship has been
established.
8. The appellate authority, after a detailed analysis of the evidence
adduced, agreed with the findings rendered by the Rent Control Court on
this aspect. We find that the view taken by the Rent Control Court and the
Appellate Authority on this aspect is a plausible one. At any rate, it is a
finding of fact which does not warrant interference in exercise of the
RCR 133/2008 -5-
revisional jurisdiction of this court.
9. Regarding the liability to pay the rent, the Appellate Authority was
of the view that rent is in arrears from 1.7.1997. This finding was rendered
based on two aspects. It was found that the petitioner admitted that he is in
occupation of the building for storing his furniture, from the date of
completion of its construction. It was completed in the middle of April
1997. Secondly, the landlord clearly admitted that he received rent upto
June 1997. It is on this basis the Appellate Authority found that there is
default on the part of the petitioner to pay the rent from 1.7.1997. Even
though the petitioner attacked the said finding, we are of the view that the
said finding also does not call for any interference. The view taken cannot
be said to be a perverse one on the admitted facts and evidence of the case.
10. As far as the bonafide need urged by the landlord is concerned,
both the authorities concurrently found that the landlord has been successful
in proving the bonafide need alleged. The requirement is for conducting a
furniture shop. Presently, he is not having any room in his possession for
conducting a furniture shop, whereas he has put up a shed on the southern
portion of his house for the conduct of his business. The said place was
found to be inconvenient. As far as this aspect is concerned, the petitioner
has no case that the case pleaded by the landlord is a ruse to evict him.
Admittedly, the landlord is having only a shed to conduct the business and
in that circumstances, it cannot be said that the need projected is a mere
RCR 133/2008 -6-
desire and is not a bonafide one. Both the authorities have analysed the
evidence, according to us, correctly. Therefore, the finding as far as the
bonafide need is concerned, does not call for any interference. As regards
the benefit of the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act, the tenant is
not entitled for its protection. He had not been successful in proving the
elements necessary to show that he is mainly depending upon the income
that is derived from the business in the petition schedule room and that there
are no suitable buildings available in the locality for his purpose.
The orders passed by the authorities below are therefore upheld. The
revision petition is dismissed. No costs.
( P.R.Raman, Judge.)
(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)
kav/