M/s Nallalam Saw Mills v. Kunhammed Koya and others

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE
A. V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI
Judgment Date: 2012-01-30
Court Decision / Holding: The revision petition is dismissed. The Rent Control Appellate Authority’s finding that the revision petitioners are not entitled to protection under Section 106 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act is upheld. No opinion is expressed on the merits of the eviction grounds other than Section 106.
Final Disposition: Revision petition dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

M/S NALLALAM SAW MILLS
MUNDOLI MAYAN

Respondents

KUNHAMMED KOYA
MUNDOLI MOIDEEN KOYA
MUNDOLI ABDURAHMAN
KADEEJA BEEVI
UMMARYA
AYISHA KUTTY
SUHARABI

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• SRI. V.R. KE SAVA KAIMAL

Counsels for Respondents

• SRI. V.V. SURENDRAN
• P.A. HARISH
• RESMI NANDANAN

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Rent Control Revision from Kozhikode, where the revision petitioners M/s Nallalam Saw Mills and Mundoli Mayan challenged eviction under sections 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(4)(iii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. They claimed protection under Section 106 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, and sought reference to the Land Tribunal, contending the matter warranted a re-evaluation of evidence by the Land Tribunal and Rent Control Court. The Rent Control Court referred the Section 106 issue to the Land Tribunal; the Land Tribunal found in their favor, but the Rent Control Court did not evict; on appeal, the Rent Control Appellate Authority allowed the landlord’s challenge and held that the petitioners were not protected under Section 106. The revision was filed; the High Court previously remanded to reconsider whether Section 106 protection applied. After remand, the Appellate Authority again held against the petitioners, and this Court dismissed the revision. The Court reasoned that there was no specific pleading that the land was leased for commercial or industrial purposes, and the Ext.B1 shows a lease of land with the building. It also noted that constructions in Ext.B7 were post-lease additions and in violation of conditions. Relying on Abdul Rahiman v. Iype, the court upheld the conclusion that Section 106 protection is not available. The revision petition was dismissed, with no opinion on other eviction grounds.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act – Section 11(2)(b), 11(3), 11(4)(iii)Kerala Land Reforms Act – Section 106

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The revision petitioners contended they were entitled to protection under Section 106 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act and sought reference to the Land Tribunal, asserting the matter required re-consideration of evidence by the Land Tribunal and Rent Control Court. They argued the Appellate Authority did not properly evaluate evidence from the Land Tribunal and Rent Control Court, and that the lease related to land with a building, with constructions post-lease challenged.

Contentions of Respondents

The landlord contended Section 106 protection is not available because the lease pertains to land with a building; reliance was placed on Abdul Rahiman v. Iype to show that such lease does not receive Section 106 protection; the Appellate Authority properly considered evidence and upheld the conclusion that the tenants were not protected under Section 106.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Abdul Rahiman v. Iype	1965 KLT 247	Positive	The Court relied on Abdul Rahiman v. Iype to conclude that protection under Section 106 is not available for a lease of land with a building, and upheld the Appellate Authority’s reasoning.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

# IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI MONDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY 2012/10TH MAGHA 1933 RCR.No. 433 of 2011 (E) ------------------------------RCA.141/2003 of I ADDL. RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, KOZHIKODE RCP.53/1994 of RCC & ADDL.M.C-I,KOZHIKODE. ------------------------- ## REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANTS/1ST AND 3RD RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. M/S.NALLALAM SAW MILLS, A PARTNERSHIP, FIRM SITUATED AT NAGARAM AMSOM AND DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE DIST. 2. MUNDOLI MAYAN AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, S/O LATE KOYATTY, TIMBER MERCHANT, R/A NAGARAM AMSOM AND DESOM KOZHIKODE DIST. BY ADV. SRI.V.R.KESAVA KAIMAL ## RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS PETITIONERS, RESPONDENTS 2 5 TO 9 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. KUNHAMMED KOYA, AGED 74 YEAS, S/O AHAMMED KOYA HAJI, KUMMATTIL VEETTIL, NAGARAM AMSOM AND DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. MUNDOLI MOIDEEN KOYA, AGED 62 YEARS, S/O LATE KOYATTY, TIMBER MERCHANT, R/A NAGARAM AMSOM AND DESOM KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE DIST. 3. MUNDOLI ABDURAHMAN, S/O MAYAN, TIMBER MERCHANT, NAGARAM AMSOM AND DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE DIST. RCR.No. 433 of 2011 (E) -2- 4. KADEEJA BEEVI, W/O LATE KOYATTI, AGED 82 YEARS, AMBALAVALLI HOUSE, NALLALAM AMSOM AND DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE DIST. 5. UMMAYYA, AGED 57 YEARS, D/O KOYATTY W/O SIDDIQUE, THIRURANGADI. 6. AYISHA KUTTY, AGED 42 YEARS, W/O AHAMMED, KODUVALLY, KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE DIST. 7. SUHARABI, AGED 37 YEARS, W/O LATHEEF, KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE DIST. BY SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN & P.A.HARISH BY SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN BY SMT.RESMI NANDANAN THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-01-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & A. V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JJ. -----------------------------------------------R. C. R. No.433 of 2011 -----------------------------------------------Dated this the 30[th] day of January, 2012 ## **ORDER** ## _Ramakrishna Pillai, J_ The tenants are in revision. 2. The 1[st] respondent approached the Rent Control Court seeking eviction of the revision petitioners under Section 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(4)(iii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act hereinafter referred to as the “Act”. The revision petitioners who entered appearance challenged inter alia that they are entitled to the protection conferred under Section 106 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act and hence, the matter has to be referred to the Land Tribunal. On that specific issue the matter was referred to the Land Tribunal and the matter came back to the Rent Control Court upholding the claim of the revision petitioner. The Rent Control Court though disallowed eviction, found R. C. R. No.433 of 2011 -2- that the finding of the Land Tribunal that the revision petitioners are entitled to the protection under Section 106 is not correct. The matter was taken in appeal by the revision petitioners as Rent Control Appeal No.141/03. The appeal was allowed by the Appellate Authority. The landlord came up before this Court in revision and in RCR.490/05. This Court, as per order dated 05/08/10 set aside the judgment of the Appellate Authority and remanded the case to the Rent Control Appellate Authority directing to take fresh decision as to whether the revision petitioners are entitled to the protection under Section 106 of the Act. After remand, the Rent Control Appellate Authority re-considered the matter and held that the revision petitioners are not entitled to the protection under Section 106 of the Act. It is against this judgment, this Revision has been filed. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the 1[st] respondent in the appeal. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners made a frontal attack on the impugned R. C. R. No.433 of 2011 -3- judgment on the allegation that though there was a specific direction by this Court to re-evaluate the evidence adduced before the Land Tribunal as well as before the Rent Control Court, the Appellate Authority has considered the evidence adduced before the Rent Control Court only. 4. We have carefully gone through the impugned order. During the course of the argument a copy of the objection filed by the revision petitioners before the Rent Control Court was also made available for our perusal. We are of the definite view that the finding of the Appellate Authority has to be upheld for the following reasons:- (a) There is no specific pleading in the objection filed by the revision petitioners before the Rent Control Court that the land was leased out for commercial or industrial purpose and the revision petitioners being the lessee had constructed the building for such commercial or industrial purpose before the statutory period. - (b) Ext.B1 (it is Ext.A1 marked before the Land - Tribunal) would go to show that what was leased out was a R. C. R. No.433 of 2011 -4- land along with a building therein. 5. The Appellate Authority placing reliance on the decision of this Court in Abdul Rahiman v. Iype (1965 KLT 247) found that the protection under Section 106 of the KLR Act will not be available to the revision petitioners as the lease relates to a land and building therein. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners that the Appellate Authority did not consider the evidence adduced before the Land Tribunal as well as before the Rent Control Court does not inspire confidence as paragraph 9 of the judgment would go to show that the entire evidence was considered in detail by the Appellate Authority while arriving at the judgment. 6. The recitals in Ext.B7 were also relied on by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners to show that the constructions were after the alleged lease of the land. But a perusal of the said document would reveal that the constructions detailed out in Ext.B7 were additional constructions and that too were in violation of the conditions R. C. R. No.433 of 2011 -5- in Ext.B1. 7. Having bestowed our anxious consideration on the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the finding of the Appellate Authority that the revision petitioners are not entitled to the protection under Section 106 of the KLR Act is only to be upheld. 8. Therefore, the revision fails and it will stand dismissed. 9. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion about the merits of the various eviction grounds invoked by the landlord including ground of arrears of rent. Sd/PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE Sd/A. V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE kns/- //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE R. C. R. No.433 of 2011 -6-