IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RCRev..No. 60 of 2009()
1. SULAIHA BEEVI W/O. MUHAMMED SALI,
... Petitioner
2. FAROOK S/O. MUHAMMED SALI,
Vs
1. K.P.RENJITH S/O. PADMANABHA PILLAI,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.G.SUDHEER
For Respondent :SRI.RAM MOHAN.G.
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.Q.BARKATH ALI
Dated :16/07/2009
O R D E R
PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
R.C.R.No.60 OF 2009
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 16th day of July, 2009
ORDER
Pius.C.Kuriakose, J.
The tenant is in revision and he impugns the order of eviction
concurrently passed against him on the ground under Clause (iii) of
Sub Section 4 of Section 11 of Act 2 of 1965. The tenant denied the
title of the landlord through his objections. According to him, the land
was originally government purampoke and the same was assigned to
his father Muhammed Sali. He contended that it is his father
Mohammed Sali who put up the building and he is in possession of the
building as owner. Thus he denied not only the landlord-tenant
relationship between the parties, but also claimed that he is having
propriety title over the land and the building.
2. The Rent Control Court formulated a point as to whether
the denial of the landlord’s title by the tenant is bonafide. The Rent
Control Court enquired into the merits of the grounds in the RCP also.
The other grounds for eviction invoked were arrears of rent, bonafide
RCR.No.60/09 2
own occupation and negligent user of the building. The evidence
before the reference court consisted of Exts.A1 to A26 and the oral
testimonies of PW1 and PW2 on the side of the landlord while the
same on the side of the tenant ( the revision petitioner) consisted of
Exts.B1 to B10 and the oral evidence of CPW1. On considering the
preliminary point, the rent control court concluded that the denial of the
landlord’s title by the tenant is not bonafide. Considering the various
grounds raised that court found that the landlord is entitled to get an
order of eviction under Clause (iii) of Sub Section (4) of Section 11.
As regards this ground, it was found that landlord’s case that the tenant
is having possession of another building reasonably sufficient for his
requirements was not specifically denied by the tenant. The appellate
authority would confirm all the findings of the rent control court and
ordered eviction under Section 11(4)(iii) only. In fact there was no
appeal by the landlord against the denial of eviction on the other
grounds sought for.
3. In this revision, the respondent in the RCP impugns not
only the decision of the courts below that the denial of the landlord’s
RCR.No.60/09 3
title is not bonafide, but also the order of eviction passed under clause
(iii) of Sub Section (4) of Section 11.
4. We have heard the submissions of Sri.G.Sudheer, learned
counsel for the revision petitioners and those of Sri.Ram Mohan.G.,
learned counsel for the respondent. Sri.G.Sudheer gave more thrust to
the contention that the landlord respondent does not have title over the
building. Sri.Sudheer took us to the various documents produced by
the revision petitioners before the courts below. He also drew our
attention to a few documents produced by the revision petitioners in
this court. We are not inclined to admit the documents produced by the
revision petitioners in this court since we find that the rent control
court had afforded all necessary opportunity to the revision petitioners
for adducing evidence and the revision petitioners do not have a ground
that they were deprived of any such opportunity. In fact, the
documents produced also in our opinion will not improve the revision
petitioners’ case. The revision petitioners’ case is that the land was
originally purampoke and that it was the father of second petitioner
who put up the building on the basis of permit issued by the local
RCR.No.60/09 4
authority. The Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority
considered this case in the light of the evidence adduced by the revision
petitioners and found that the documents produced by the revision
petitioners do not pertain to the plot upon which the petition schedule
building is situated. In our view, the question of proprietary title over
the land upon which the building is constructed does not have much
relevance in rent control proceedings. In rent control proceedings it is
the landlord-tenant relationship in respect of the building that is more
important. If at all title is important , it is the title in respect of the
building and not in respect of the land upon which it is constructed. It
is seen that, in the property tax assessment books in the
Thiruvananthapuram Corporation, the respondent is shown as the
owner of the building. Section 26 of the Rent Control Act lays down
that entries contained in the assessment books of the local authority
shall be accepted by the authorities under the Act as evidence of the
facts recorded therein. Thus the assessment book of the
Thiruvananthapuram Corporation which discloses that the respondent
is the owner of the building and that the occupation of the revision
RCR.No.60/09 5
petitioner is only that of a tenant has considerable probative value. It is
taking into account this aspect of the matter also, the Rent Control
Appellate Authority which under the statutory scheme is the final court
on facts has taken a decision against the revision petitioners.
5. Having regard to the contours of our jurisdiction under
Section 20 which is revisional, we do not find any warrant for
interfering with the impugned judgment of the Rent Control Appellate
Authority confirming the order of the Rent Control Court. We do not
find any illegality, irregularity or impropriety to the extent of justifying
invocation of revisional jurisdiction. As for the order of eviction
passed under clause (iii) of Section 11(4), as rightly noticed by the
appellate authority, the landlord’s version that the tenant is in
possession of another building, the door number of which is mentioned
in the rent control petition, is not specifically denied in evidence. The
revision petitioner did not assert in evidence that he does not have
possession of any other building. The title over the building possessed
by the tenant is not relevant. What is relevant is only possession . Once
possession of other building is admitted either expressly or by non
RCR.No.60/09 6
traverse or by non-denial in evidence, then it is for the tenant to adduce
evidence and show that the building is not sufficient for his
requirements. The Appellate Authority concluded that an order of
eviction is liable to be passed against the tenant under Section 11(4)
(iii). In our opinion, the legislative objective underlying Clause (iii) of
Sub Section (4) of Section 11 is that in a situation where there is acute
accommodation shortage, the tenants should not be allowed the luxury
of having more buildings at their disposal than what is necessary for
their requirements.
6. Sri.Sudheer lastly submitted that the land acquisition
proceedings have now been initiated for acquiring the building which is
subject matter of the RCR. According to him, notice has been received
by his client from the land acquisition authority and as per that notice
entire compensation is to be paid to his client only. The above
submission was opposed by Sri.Ram Mohan. According to him, no
acquisition proceedings have been initiated in respect of the building
which is subject matter of the RCR or in respect of the land upon which
the building is constructed. We are not going to settle this issue in this
RCR.No.60/09 7
revision petition, since, under this jurisdiction, we are called upon to
examine only the correctness of the judgment of the Rent Control
Appellate Authority confirming the order of the Rent Control Court.
We do not find any warrant for interference with the Appellate
Authority’s judgment.
7. Sri.Sudheer now requested for grant of one year’s time to
vacate the premises. Sri.Ram Mohan would oppose this request tooth
and nail. According to Sri.Ram Mohan contract rent at the rate of
Rs. 4000/- is in arrears since 1998 onwards. He submitted that even if
this court is inclined to grant time, it may be on condition that the entire
arrears of rent alleged by the landlord is paid by the revision
petitioners. We are not inclined to grant so much of time as sought for
by Sri.Sudheer. We are not inclined either to impose the condition
suggested by Sri.Ram Mohan in this case where eviction order sought
for under Section 11(2)(b) was declined by the authorities on the
reason that landlord did not prove the rate of rent. At the same time,
we notice that the building has a carpet area of atleast 800 sq.ft. and it
is situated in Chalay Bazar in Thiruvananthapuram city. We are sure
RCR.No.60/09 8
that if the building is let out today, the rent to be fetched will be much
more than Rs. 4000 per month. However, we fix occupational charges
payable by the revision petitioners as condition for being given time
for surrender at Rs. 3,000/- per month with effect from August 2009.
The occupational charges shall be payable on or before the 5th of every
month commencing from 05/08/2009.
8. The result of the RCR is as follows :
The RCR will stand dismissed. There will be a direction to the
execution court not to order and effect delivery of the petition schedule
building till 31/01/2010 subject to the following conditions ;
The revision petitioners shall file an affidavit
before the execution court or the Rent Control Court
within three weeks from today undertaking to
peacefully surrender the petition schedule building to
the respondent on or before 30/01/2010 and undertaking
further through the same affidavit that they will pay
occupational charges to the revision petitioner at the rate
of Rs.3000/- on or before the 5th of every month
RCR.No.60/09 9
commencing from 5th August 2009 till the date of
surrender. The revision petitioners will get the benefit
of time granted under this order only if they file the
affidavit on time.
In the event of any default by the revision
petitioners in the matter of payment of amount ordered
by us, the execution court will be justified in ordering
delivery forthwith.
PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE
JUDGE
P.Q.BARKATH ALI
JUDGE
sv.
RCR.No.60/09 10