High Court of KeralaDivision Bench2014-11-28Revision petition dismissed.

Irudayaraj and Michael v. Sundarraj, Metilda and Jacob

Case / Petition Number:RCRev. No. 318 of 2014

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: K.T. Sankaran
P.D. Rajan
Judgment Date: 2014-11-28
Court Decision / Holding: Revision petition dismissed. The High Court upheld the concurrent findings that the landlady’s bona fide need was proved and that successors-in-interest are not entitled to the protection of Section 11(17). The court granted time for eviction with conditions: tenants to vacate by 31 May 2015; arrears deposit by 30 November 2014; arrears deposit to Rent Control Court by 31 December 2014; rent raised to 3,000 per month from 1 December 2014; affidavit to vacate due by 31 December 2014; non-compliance leads to immediate eviction unless conditions are met.
Final Disposition: Revision petition dismissed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Irudayaraj
Michael

Respondents

Sundarraj S/o. Soosaimanikayam
Metilda W/o. Manikkam
Jacob S/o. Sundararaj

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. Binoy Vasu devan
• Sri. R. Manikantan
• Sri. P. G. Babitha

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. Jacob Sebastian (Caveator)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Kerala High Court revision concerns whether the successors of a tenant can claim protection under Section 11(17) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The petitioners, Irudayaraj and Michael, tenants, challenged concurrent factual findings of the Rent Control Court and the Rent Control Appellate Authority that the landlady’s bona fide requirement of the petition schedule building was proved and that Section 11(17) could not be invoked by the successors of the original tenant. The petition schedule building had been in possession of Arogyaswamy since 1926; his death led to occupancy by his legal representatives. The Rent Control Court allowed eviction under Section 11(3) and rejected the 11(17) claim; the Appellate Authority affirmed. The landlady contended her bona fide need to set up residence in the premises and noted the tenants’ high salaries and failure to enhance rent to 1500/-, despite demands. The revision court, applying the five-judge bench ruling in Prasanna v. Haris, held that the successors cannot claim benefit of Section 11(17). The Appellate and Revisional Courts’ findings were upheld; the revision petition was dismissed. The court granted the tenants time to vacate until 31 May 2015, with conditions: deposit of arrears by 31 December 2014, payment of enhanced rent from December 2014, and an unconditional affidavit to vacate; non-compliance would lead to immediate eviction, while compliance would defer eviction to 31 May 2015.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965Section 11(17) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965Second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Appellate/revisional standard of review: will not interfere with findings of fact unless vitiated by illegality, irregularity or impropriety.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The revision petitioners contended that the predecessor's occupancy and the family’s claim to Section 11(17) protections should be recognised; they argued that the landlady’s alleged bona fide need is not sufficiently established and that the five-judges-bench decision in Prasanna v. Haris bars a plain application of Section 11(17) to successors-in-interest. They asserted that the landlady failed to prove dire need and that the landlady’s own need cannot override the rights of the successors; they urged the court to apply the protective provisions of Section 11(17) to the successors-in-interest or remand for fresh scrutiny of merits.

Contentions of Respondents

The landlady argued bona fide need to occupy the petition schedule building; she emphasized that succession by legal heirs after the tenant’s death should not extinguish her right to eviction under Section 11(3) and Section 11(17) was inapplicable to successors under the five-judge bench decision cited; the respondents contended that the tenants did not prove a dire need or any legitimate reason to retain occupation; they asserted that the tenancy's continuation would cause unnecessary hardship to the landlady and that eviction under the stated sections was proper.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Prasanna v. Haris	2007(2) KLT 103	Positive	Cited as controlling authority for rejecting the tenants’ Section 11(17) claim; court relies on the five-judge bench decision in Prasanna v. Haris to hold that successors-in-interest cannot claim protection under Section 11(17).

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Irudayaraj and Michael v. Sundarraj, Metilda and Jacob and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN** **FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2014/7TH AGRAHAYANA, 1936** **RCRev..No. 318 of 2014 ()** **-------------------------AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN RCA 31/2012 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND I ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE, PALAKKAD DATED 03-09-2014** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN RCP 72/2006 of RENT CONTROL COURT (ADDL.MUNSIFF), PALAKKAD DATED 19-06-2012** **REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------------** ## **1. IRUDAYARAJ AGED 39 YEARS** **S/O. AROGYASWAMY (LATE), RESIDING AT 15/25** **RC CHURCH COMPOUND, NEAR RADHAKRISHNA HALL, COURT ROAD PALAKKAD.** **2. MICHAEL, AGED 37 YEARS** **S/O. AROGRYASWAMY, RESIDING AT POLICE QUARTERS MUTTIKULANGARA POLICE CAMP, PALAKKAD.** **BY ADVS.SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN SRI.R.MANIKANTAN SMT.P.G.BABITHA** **RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/LEGAL HEIRS OF THE PETITIONER: --------------------------------------------------------** **1. SUNDARRAJ S/O. SOOSAIMANIKAYAM, 18/316, CHETTY STREET KOPPAM AMSOM, PALAKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD - 678 001.** ## **2. METILADA** **W/O. MANIKKAM, 18/316, CHETTY STREET KOPPAM AMSOM, PALAKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD - 678 001. 3. JACOB, S/O. SUNDARAJ, 18/316, CHETTY STREET KOPPAM AMSOM, PALAKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD - 678 001. R. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN (CAVEATOR)** **THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28-11-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **acd** ## **K.T. SANKARAN & P.D. RAJAN, JJ.** ------------------------------------------R.C.R.No.318 of 2014 ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 28[th] day of November, 2014 ## **ORDER** ## **K.T. SANKARAN,J.** The tenants challenge the concurrent findings of the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. 2. Predecessor-in-interest of the respondents filed R.C.P.No.72/2006 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Palakkad against the petitioners. The Rent Control Petition was allowed under Section 11(3) of the Act as per order dated 19[th] June, 2012. The tenants filed R.C.A.No.31/2012 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Palakkad challenging the order of the Rent Control Court. The R.C.R.No.318/14 2 Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal. 3. The landlady contended that the petition schedule building, which is a residential building, was rented out to Arogyaswamy, the father of the tenants, for a monthly rent of 3/-. Arogyaswamy died in 2005.₹ His legal representatives are occupying the building. Though the landlady requested the tenants to enhance the rent to 1500/-, that request was not accepted by the₹ tenants in spite of the fact that one of the tenants is working in the Police Department drawing more than ₹18,000/- per month and the other tenant is an Additional Sub Inspector of Police. The bona fide need put forward by the landlady was that she wanted to set up her residence in the petition schedule building. The landlady was residing in a rented house. 4. The tenants disputed the bona fide need. They 3 R.C.R.No.318/14 also raised a contention that Arogyaswami was inducted in the petition schedule building on 17.4.1926, after converting him to Christianity. It was contended that Arogyaswamy had spent 15,000/- for constructing a₹ building in the property and spent ₹7,000/for constructing a latrine therein. The construction was made with the permission of the then parish priest. The landlady had filed R.C.P.No.53/1982 for eviction of the tenants. In that case, Arogyaswamy put forward a contention that he was entitled to the benefit of Section 11(17) of the Act. The Court did not accept that contention. In that case, Arogyaswamy denied the title of the landlady. The Rent Control Court found that the denial of title was bona fide. Therefore, the landlady filed a suit as O.S.No.420/1984, which was decreed and the matter went up to this Court. Arogyaswamy, the tenant raised a R.C.R.No.318/14 4 contention that he was entitled to the benefit of Section 11(17) of the Act. The contention that the tenant was entitled to the protection of Section 11(17) was rejected. However, eviction was not ordered on the ground that the landlady did not prove the dire need as mentioned in Section 11(17) of the Act. 5. After the death of Arogyaswamy, in the present proceedings, the tenants raised a contention under Section 11(17) also. It was held that the said contention is not maintainable, in the light of the five Judges Bench judgment of this Court in **Prasanna** v. **Haris** [2007(2) KLT 103]. 6. The Rent Control Court held that the bona fide need put forward by the landlady has been established. The claim under Section 11(17) of the Act raised by the tenants was rejected, based on the decision in Prasanna's R.C.R.No.318/14 5 case (surpa) that the successors-in-interest of the original tenant are not entitled to claim the benefit of Section 11(17) of the Act. 7. The Appellate Authority also considered the oral and documentary evidence in the case and concurred with the view taken by the Rent Control Court. The Appellate Authority also considered the objection raised by the tenants that after the death of the landlady, the need does not survive and held that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the need survives for the bona fide need of the legal representatives of the landlady. 8. Both the tenants are employed in Police Department. They are drawing handsome salary. Still they did not think of enhancing the rent to 1500/- and pay the₹ same to the landlady. The landlady was residing in a rented house. Though she got an order for eviction, after several R.C.R.No.318/14 6 rounds of litigations starting from 1982, she could not enjoy the benefits of the order of eviction. After her death, the tenants even challenged the bona fide need of the successors-in-interest of the landlady. At every point of time, the tenants raised all sorts of cantankerous contentions and they were defeated. They even raised a contention that they are engaged in book binding in the petition schedule building and therefore, they are entitled to the benefit of the 2[nd] proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. How Government servants could engage themselves in business, is not known. 9. The findings rendered by the authorities below are findings of fact. The revisional Court will not be justified in interfering with the findings of fact, unless the order and judgment of the authorities below are vitiated by illegality, irregularity or impropriety. There is R.C.R.No.318/14 7 no such illegality, irregularity or impropriety. The Revision fails and it is accordingly dismissed. Lastly, the learned counsel for the petitioners/tenants prayed for a reasonable time to vacate the petition schedule building. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to grant time till 31.5.2015 to the tenants to vacate the petition schedule building. Accordingly, time is granted till 31.5.2015 to the tenants to vacate the petition schedule building on condition that they shall deposit the arrears of rent till 30.11.2014 before the Rent Control Court on or before 31.12.2014 and also on condition that they shall pay the rent at the enhanced rate of 3,000/- per month from₹ 1.12.2014 till they vacate the petition schedule building. The monthly rent shall be deposited on or before 10[th] of succeeding months commencing from January 2015 8 R.C.R.No.318/14 onwards. The tenants shall file an affidavit before the Rent Control Court on or before 31.12.2014 unconditionally undertaking to vacate the petition schedule building on or before 31.5.2015. If the tenants fail to comply with any of the conditions mentioned above, the order of eviction shall be executed forthwith. If the tenants comply with the above conditions, the order of eviction shall not be executed till 31.5.2015. ## **K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE.** **P.D. RAJAN, JUDGE.** acd R.C.R.No.318/14 9 R.C.R.No.318/14 10