P.K. Rajendran and others v. M.K. Pradeep and others

**IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR** **WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE 2014/4TH ASHADHA, 1936** ## **RCRev..No. 180 of 2013 ()** **-----------------------------------------AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN RCA 16/2008 of ADDL.D.C. & ADDL.MACT,THALASSERY DATED 05-03-2013** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN RCP 31/2007 of RENT CONTROLLER (PRL.M.C),KANNUR DATED 11-01-2008** ## **REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS:** **----------------------------------------------------------------------------------** **1. P.K. RAJENDRAN, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.LATE RAMUNNI, RESIDING AT BUILDING NO.VI/20, PUTHAN VEEDU, TALAP, KANNUR.** **2. K.P.RENJINI, AGED 48 YEARS** - **D/O.RAMUNNI, -DO- -DO-** **3. K.P.REJITHA, AGED 37 YEARS,** - **D/O.RAMUNNI, -DO-** **BY ADVS.SRI.B.KRISHNAN SRI.R.PARTHASARATHY SRI.RAJESH V.NAIR** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONERS/LANDLORDS:** **------------------------------------------------------------------** **1. M.K. PRADEEP, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.LATE DAMODARAN, RESIDING AT MATHUMMAL HOUSE, CHALAD, KANNUR.** **2. NITTUR RAMESHAN,, AGED 59 YEARS, RESIDING AT BUILDING NO.VI/20 PUTHAN VEEDU, TALAP, KANNUR.** ## **3. RENJITH, AGED 45 YEARS,** - **-DO- -DO-** ## **4. RAMANATHAN, AGED 39 YEARS,** - **-DO- -DO-** **5. REMANI, AGED 62 YEARS,** - **-DO- -DO-** ## **6. RAGINI, AGED 43 YEARS** - **-DO- -DO-** ## **RCRev..No. 180 of 2013 ()** ## **7. RATHNAVATHI, AGED 65 YEARS,** - **-DO- -DO-** ## **8. REMYA, AGED 50 YEARS,** - **-DO- -DO-** ## **9. LAKSHMI,** - **W/O.LATE DAMODARAN, P.K.HOUSE, PALLIKKULAM P.O.CHIRAKKAL, KANNUR. (DELETED)*** ## **10. DILEEP,** **S/O.DAMODARAN, -DO- -DO-** ## **11. DEEPIKA,** - **D/O.LATE DAMODARAN, -DO- -DO- (DELETED)*** ## **12. BHAMINI,** **D/O.LATE DAMODARAN, -DO- -DO-** ## **13. SUGATHA,** ## **D/O.LATE DAMODARAN, -DO- -DO-** ## **14. DINESH,** **S/O.LATE DAMODARAN, -DO- -DO(DELETED)*** **(RESPONDENTS 3 TO 7 ARE THE CHILDREN OF LATE RAMUNNI AND THEY ARE RESIDING AT BUILDING NO.VI/20 PUTHAN VEEDU, NEAR ERATTAKKANNAN PALAM, TALAP, KANNUR DISTRICT)** **(RESPONDENTS 10 TO 14 ARE THE CHILDREN OF LATE DAMODARAN AND THEY ARE RESIDING AT P.K.HOUSE PALLIKULAM, P.O.CHIRAKKAL, KANNUR.).** ***(RESPONDENTS 9, 11 AND 14 ARE DELETED AT THE RISK OF THE PETITIONERS, AS PER ORDER DATED 09.10.2013 IN I.A.NO.2564/13 IN R.C.R.No.180/13)** **R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH) R1 BY ADV. SRI.ABDUL RAOOF PALLIPATH R2-R8 BY ADV. SMT.V.P.SATHI** **THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25-06-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JJ.** ------------------------------------------------------------------ R.C.R.No.180 of 2013 ------------------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 25[th] day of June, 2014 ## **O R D E R** ## **Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.** - 1.This revision petition under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act is directed against concurrent orders of eviction under Section 11(3) on the ground that the landlord has established bona fide need for own occupation of a residential premises. In opposition to the rent control petition, the respondents therein set up the plea that they are the tenants of the building since 1953 and that the petitioner cannot file the rent control petition without the consent of the other co-owners and he is a stranger to the petition schedule building and the person arrayed as the tenant. The Rent Control Court framed the issue as to whether the denial of title of the landlord is bona fide and decided that issue as per preliminary order dated 19.12.2010 overruling that objection. **2** _R.C.R.No.180/13_ Thereafter, the Rent Control Court on further adjudication, by order dated 11.01.2008, upheld the plea of the landlord that he is entitled to an order of eviction under Section 11(3) and benefit of the provisos was not found pleaded and proved in so far as the tenants are concerned. The tenants appealed against that order. Before the Appellate Authority, all issues were mooted. The Appellate Authority in point No.2 considered and affirmed the finding that the denial of title of the landlord is not bona fide. The other contentions as regards Section 11(3) and the provisos thereto were also found against and, thus the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court stands affirmed at the hands of the Appellate Authority. - 2.In this revision, the learned counsel appearing for the tenants making an earnest effort to show that Ext.A2 document cannot be connected with Ext.A1 of 1953 under which the building came into possession of the tenants. He, therefore, pleaded that there is nothing to show that Ext.A2 amounted to transfer of interest of the landlord under Ext.A1 in favour of person who has instituted the rent control petition. He also argued **3** _R.C.R.No.180/13_ that even if there is any admission by conduct in subsequent proceedings of the tenants having been instituted against the present landlord who has made the application for eviction, such proceedings before the Accommodation Controller cannot be considered as admission, conferring thereby and any admission by such conduct can always be explained. We make reference in this context to the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court of India in **Mangat Ram and another v. Sardar Meharban Singh and others [1998 (1) RCR 585]** . 3. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents argued that Exts.A3, A4, A6, A7, A8, A9 and also A10 clearly evidence the conduct of the tenants in having accepted the petitioner and his parents and siblings as the landlords. - 4.Ext.A10 is the petition filed under Section 17 (2) of the BLRC Act before the Accommodation Controller. That is filed by P.K.Rajendran and 5 others who are none other than the persons arrayed as the tenants in the Rent Control Petition **4** _R.C.R.No.180/13_ from which this revision arises. They are the revision petitioners before us. The respondents in Ext.A10 proceedings were Valsarajan and others, including Pradeepan, the one who has instituted the Rent Control Petition from which this revision arises. Ext.A10 application was decided as per Ext.A6 order of the Accommodation Controller on 5/6/1991. Ext.A6 order was issued by the Accommodation Controller coming to the aid of the tenants and thereby directing the landlords to effect repairs and maintenance of the building. Ext.A7 is the notice issued through Advocate, requiring eviction. That is acknowledged as per Ext.A8. Ext.A9 is an Advocate's notice issued to Smt.K.K.Radha Damodaran, who is the mother of Pradeepan who has instituted RCP from which this revision arises. That was issued by an Advocate on behalf of P.K.Rajendran who is one among the tenants in this revision petition before us. That is an Advocate's notice calling upon K.K.Radha Damodaran, wife of Late Mattummal Damodaran, that is, the parents of the person who has instituted this Rent Control Petition to effect repairs and carry out maintenance of the building. With these materials, we may note that Exts.A3 **5** _R.C.R.No.180/13_ and A4, certified copies of the Rent Control Court's order and its decreetal portion show that Venu, son of Kuttipennu as manager and Karanavar of the Tharavadu had obtained an order of eviction of the predecessor-in-interest of the present tenant. That being the admitted position, Ext.A2 is nothing but an authorization in furtherance of such eviction order. The present tenants after Ext.A3 and A4 eviction orders can be treated as only tenants holding over and such holding over tenants cannot turn round to dispute the paramount title of the landlord. Any such dispute can never be treated as a bona fide dispute of title for the purpose of Section 11(1) of Act 2 of 1965. For these reasons, we are unable to find any illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the order of the Appellate Authority affirming the order of eviction that the denial of the title is not appropriate. Revision fails on that ground. 5.On to the question of the order of eviction under Section 11(3), we see that the Rent Control Court and Appellate Authority have pointedly considered all relevant materials and pleadings and come to the finding that the applicant for eviction who is **6** _R.C.R.No.180/13_ now stationed in Bangalore in connection with his employment needs to come back to his native place and he has no other place to reside with his family. He, therefore, has proved that he is in bona fide need of the petition schedule building. He is a co-owner. No other co-owner has objected to the process. A co-owner is entitled to seek eviction for his own personal needs. Under such circumstances, we do not find any ground to interfere with the order of eviction granted under Section 11(3). We also do not find that the tenant has established a plea before the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority that he is entitled to the benefit of the second proviso to Section 11(2). 6.For the aforesaid reasons, this revision fails. 7.In the result, - (a) This revision is dismissed. - (b) All the revision petitioners are granted four months' time from today to vacate the premises **7** _R.C.R.No.180/13_ and deliver possession to the landlord on the following conditions: - i. They remit the entire arrears of rent as on today before the executing court within four weeks from today and file an affidavit before the executing court within four weeks from today, unconditionally undertaking to surrender vacant possession of the premises to the landlord within four months from today. - iii.They pay charges towards use and occupation of the building at the current rent rate from today till they give vacant possession of the premises to the landlord. - (c)Execution proceedings, if any, pending before the executing court shall be kept in abeyance for a period of four months. - (d)If there is default in performing any of the **8** _R.C.R.No.180/13_ conditions imposed in clause (b) above, the benefit given to the tenants as per this order will stand recalled automatically and the executing court shall effect delivery forthwith. Sd/- **(THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE)** Sd/- **(P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE)** //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE DG