Mohammed Iqbal v. Kochuthressya @ Baby

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA** **MONDAY, THE 10[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 18TH ASWINA, 1944 RCREV. NO. 268 OF 2015** **(AGAINST THE ORDER IN RCP NO.22 OF 2009 OF RENT CONTRL COURT N.PARUR AND RCA NO.1/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, N.PARUR)** ## **REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:** **MOHAMMED IQBAL, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O MAMMU, CHIRAPURATH, MANJALI MURI, KARUMALLOOR VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK BY ADVS. SRI.SIRAJ KAROLY SRI.R.PARAMESWARA IYER** ## **RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PETTIONER:** **KOCHUTHRESSYA @ BABY, AGED 78 YEARS, D/O AVARA, POONTHOPPU PURAYIDATHIL, PARAVOOTHARA MURI, PARAVUR VILLAGE PARAVUR TALUK BY ADVS. SRI.DINESH R.SHENOY SRI.EBIN MATHEW SMT.K.K.JYOTHILAKSHMY** **THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** 2 R.C.R. No.268 of 2015 ## **P.B.SURESH KUMAR & C.S.SUDHA, JJ.** **----------------------------------------------Rent Control Revision No.268 of 2015 ----------------------------------------------Dated this the 10[th] day of October, 2022.** ## **O R D E R** ## **P.B.Suresh Kumar, J.** The petitioner in this revision petition was the respondent in a proceedings for eviction under Section 11(2)(b) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (the Act). The respondent herein was the petitioner in the said proceedings. 2. The subject matter of the proceedings is a shop room belonging to the respondent which was let out by her to the petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs.525/-. While the rental arrangement was continuing, on 14.02.2006, the respondent agreed to sell the tenanted premises to the petitioner for a consideration of Rs.2,80,000/and received a sum of 3 R.C.R. No.268 of 2015 Rs.1,00,000/- by way of advance sale consideration in terms of an agreement for sale executed between the parties. Disputes arose between the parties later concerning the aforesaid sale agreement for, according to the respondent, she has agreed to sell to the petitioner only the shop building and the electric fittings attached to it and not the land on which the building has been constructed, whereas the petitioner maintained that the respondent is bound to transfer in terms of the agreement for sale not only the building but also the land on which the building is constructed. A suit was consequently filed by the petitioner against the respondent as O.S.No.514 of 2006 on the files of the Additional Sub Court, North Paravur, for specific performance of the agreement for sale and the same was decreed on 29.11.2008. The respondent challenged the decree in O.S.No.514 of 2006 before this Court and obtained an interim order staying the operation of the decree. According to the respondent, since the petitioner has not obtained title to the tenanted premises pursuant to the agreement for sale, the tenancy arrangement continues and the petitioner is therefore 4 R.C.R. No.268 of 2015 bound to pay rent to her for the tenanted premises and that he has committed default in paying rent from January 2009 onwards. It was also her case that even though she called upon the petitioner through a registered lawyers notice to pay the defaulted rent, the petitioner who received the said notice refused to pay the rent. According to the respondent, the petitioner, in the circumstances, is liable to be evicted from the premises in terms of the provision contained in Section 11(2)(b) of the Act, and the proceedings has been instituted for the said purpose. 3. The petitioner contested the proceedings contending that the landlord-tenant relationship between them ceased to exist when the respondent agreed to sell the tenanted premises to the petitioner and the eviction petition is therefore not maintainable. 4. The Rent Control Court took the view that in the absence of any document conveying the title of the tenanted premises to the petitioner either by the respondent or by the court pursuant to the decree obtained by the petitioner, the 5 R.C.R. No.268 of 2015 tenancy arrangement continues and the petitioner is, therefore, bound to pay rent of the premises to the respondent, and insofar as the petitioner has admittedly not paid rent for the period from January 2006, the respondent is entitled to evict the petitioner from the premises under Section 11(2)(b) of the Act. Consequently, the petitioner was directed to surrender vacant possession of the premises within two months. Though the petitioner challenged the said decision in appeal, the Appellate Authority under the Act affirmed the decision of the Rent Control Court. The petitioner is aggrieved by the concurrent decisions against him and hence this revision petition. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner as also the learned counsel for the respondent. 6. As noted, the tenancy arrangement pleaded by the respondent in the proceedings has not been denied or disputed by the petitioner. The petitioner has also not disputed the quantum of the monthly rent agreed to be paid by him as has been pleaded by the respondent in the eviction petition. 6 R.C.R. No.268 of 2015 The petitioner has also not disputed the case set out by the respondent in the eviction petition that he has committed default in paying the rent of the premises from January, 2009. Ext.A1 is the notice caused to be sent by the respondent to the petitioner intimating the default in paying the rent as is provided for under the proviso to Section 11(2)(b). The petitioner who received the said notice has not paid the defaulted rent nor has he sent any reply to Ext.A1 notice. He has no case in the counter affidavit filed in the rent control petition that he has not committed default in paying the rent. In other words, there is no dispute to the fact that the rent of the premises is in arrears from January, 2009 and that the petitioner has refused to pay the defaulted rent on receipt of the registered notice. 7. As noted, the only contention raised by the petitioner in the eviction petition is that the landlord-tenant relationship between the parties ceased to exist when the respondent agreed to sell the tenanted premises to him. True, the respondent had agreed to sell the tenanted premises to the 7 R.C.R. No.268 of 2015 petitioner and since the respondent did not convey the premises in terms of the agreement, the petitioner filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement for sale and obtained a decree for the said purpose against the respondent. The view taken by the Rent Control Court is that in the absence of any sale deed conveying the title of the tenanted premises by the landlord to the tenant either by the landlord herself or the court pursuant to a decree for specific performance obtained by the tenant against the landlord, the contractual tenancy which became a statutory tenancy on the expiry of the term of the lease continues and it is on that basis, the Rent Control Court ordered eviction. It is seen that the Appellate Authority endorsed the said view. It is now trite that a decree or order under the Specific Relief Act directing specific performance of a contract of sale by itself does not create an interest in the subject matter in favour of the decree holder and it has to undergo the process of execution so as to enable the decree holder to claim any interest in the subject matter [See **Safeena Salim v Subair,** 2014 (4) KLT 752]. We do not, therefore, find 8 R.C.R. No.268 of 2015 any infirmity in the decisions of the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority. That apart, by a separate judgment rendered today, we have set aside the decree in O.S.No.514 of 2006 on a finding that the petitioner is not entitled to a decree for specific performance of the agreement for sale dated 14.02.2006. In the light of the said decision, at any rate, the petitioner cannot be heard to contend that there has been any change at all in the status of the parties. The revision petition, in the circumstances, is without merits and the same is accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- ## **P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.** Sd/- ## **C.S.SUDHA, JUDGE.** YKB