R.C.Rev. Nos. 47, 48, 49, 50 and 87 of 2020 v. Khairul Bashar

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JOHNSON JOHN MONDAY, THE 13[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 22ND KARTHIKA, 1945** **RCREV. NO. 47 OF 2020** **AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29.10.2019 IN RCA NO.39 OF 2018 OF THE RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY/ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT - II, THALASSERY CONCURRING WITH THE COMMON ORDER DATED 27.01.2018 IN RCP NO.38 OF 2017 OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, KANNUR** ## **REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:** ## **REENA.K** **AGED 50 YEARS, W/O.SUDHEENDRAN, BUILDING NO.CW 2666 IN CENTAUR TOURIST HOME, WARD NO.2, BLOCK NO.8, KANNUR AMSOM, KANNUR KARAR DESOM, CAMP BAZAR, KANNUR DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS. R.SUDHISH SMT.M.MANJU SRI.SUSHANTH.J.** ## **RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PETTIONER:** **KHAIRUL BASHAR. A.R** **S/O K.T.M.A.RASAK, AGED 24 YEARS, RESIDING AT MALABAR HEIGHTS, TALAP, KANNUR-670002. BY ADV SRI.V.R.KESAVA KAIMAL** **THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 06.11.2023, ALONG WITH RCRev..50/2020, 49/2020 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 13.11.2023 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** R.C.Rev.Nos.47 of 2020 and con. cases -: 2 :- ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JOHNSON JOHN MONDAY, THE 13[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 22ND KARTHIKA, 1945** **RCREV. NO. 48 OF 2020** **AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29.10.2019 IN RCA NO.40 OF 2018 OF THE RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY/ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT - II, THALASSERY CONCURRING WITH THE COMMON ORDER DATED 27.01.2018 IN RCP NO.40 OF 2017 OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, KANNUR** ## **REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:** **MEETHALE PURAYI NASSAR,** **AGED 59 YEARS, S/O. KUNHAMMED, BUILDING NO. CW 2671 (NEW NO. CB40/2783) CENTAUR TOURIST HOME, WARD NO. 2, BLOCK NO. 8, KANNUR AMSOM, KANNUR KARAR DESOM, CAMP BAZAR, KANNUR DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS. R.SUDHISH SMT.M.MANJU SRI.SUSHANTH.J.** ## **RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:** **KHAIRUL BASHAR .A.R AGED 24 YEARS, S/O. K.T.M.A RASAK, RESIDING AT MALABAR HEIGHTS, TALAP, KANNUR670002 BY ADV SRI.V.R.KESAVA KAIMAL** **THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 06.11.2023, ALONG WITH RCRev..47/2020 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 13.11.2023 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** R.C.Rev.Nos.47 of 2020 and con. cases -: 3 :- ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JOHNSON JOHN MONDAY, THE 13[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 22ND KARTHIKA, 1945** **RCREV. NO. 49 OF 2020** **AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29.10.2019 IN RCA NO.38 OF 2018 OF THE RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY/ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT - II, THALASSERY CONCURRING WITH THE COMMON ORDER DATED 27.01.2018 IN RCP NO.37 OF 2017 OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, KANNUR** ## **REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:** ## **SHERLI SHAJI** **AGED 50 YEARS, W/O.SHAJI, BUILDING NO.CC.1544A (SHOP NO.1),CENTAUR TOURIST HOME, WARD NO.2, BLOCK NO.8, KANNUR AMSOM, KANNUR KARAR DESOM, CAMP BAZAR, KANNUR DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS. R.SUDHISH SMT.M.MANJU SRI.SUSHANTH.J.** ## **RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:** **KHAIRUL BASHAR. A.R AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.K.T.M.A.RASAK, RESIDING AT MALABAR HEIGHTS,TALAP,KANNUR-670002.** **BY ADV SRI.V.R.KESAVA KAIMAL** **THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 06.11.2023, ALONG WITH RCRev..47/2020 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 13.11.2023 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** R.C.Rev.Nos.47 of 2020 and con. cases -: 4 :- ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JOHNSON JOHN MONDAY, THE 13[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 22ND KARTHIKA,** **1945** **RCREV. NO. 50 OF 2020** **AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29.10.2019 IN RCA NO.45 OF 2018 OF THE RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY/ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT - II, THALASSERY CONCURRING WITH THE COMMON ORDER DATED 27.01.2018 IN RCP NO.35 OF 2017 OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, KANNUR** ## **REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:** **K.P.SHAJI AGED 58 YEARS, S/O. PRABHAKARAN, BUILDING NO.CC 126 D, (NEW NO. CB 40/2782), CENTAUR TOURIST HOME, WARD NO. 2, BLOCK NO.8, KANNUR AMSOM, KANNUR KARAR DESOM, CAMP BAZAR, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. R.SUDHISH SMT.M.MANJU SRI.SUSHANTH.J.** ## **RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:** **KHAIRUL BASHAR. A.R S/O. K.T.M.A RASAK, AGED 24 YEARS, RESIDING AT MALABAR HEIGHTS, TALAP, KANNUR-670002.** **BY ADV SRI.V.R.KESAVA KAIMAL** **THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 06.11.2023, ALONG WITH RCRev..47/2020 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 13.11.2023 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** R.C.Rev.Nos.47 of 2020 and con. cases -: 5 :- ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JOHNSON JOHN MONDAY, THE 13[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 22ND KARTHIKA,** **1945** **RCREV. NO. 87 OF 2020** **AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29.10.2019 IN RCA NO.46 OF 2018 OF THE RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY/ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT - II, THALASSERY CONCURRING WITH THE COMMON ORDER DATED 27.01.2018 IN RCP NO.45 OF 2017 OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, KANNUR** ## **REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:** **THARAYIL PEEDIKAYIL MOIDEEN KUNHI, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.HASSAN KUNHI, BUILDING NO.CC 126A AND B(NEW NO.CB40/2779), CENTAUR TOURIST HOME, WARD NO.2, BLOCK NO.8, KANNUR AMSOM, KANNUR KARAR DESOM, CAMP BAZAR, KANNUR DISTIRCT.** **BY ADVS. R.SUDHISH SMT.M.MANJU SRI.SUSHANTH.J.** ## **RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:** **KHAIRUL BASHAR.A.R AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.K.T.M.A.RASAK, RESIDING AT MALABAR HEIGHTS, TALAP, KANNUR-670002** **BY ADV SRI.V.R.KESAVA KAIMAL** **THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 06.11.2023, ALONG WITH RCRev..47/2020 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 13.11.2023 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** R.C.Rev.Nos.47 of 2020 and con. cases -: 6 :- ## P.B.SURESH KUMAR & JOHNSON JOHN, JJ. ----------------------------------------------- R.C.Rev. Nos.47, 48, 49, 50 and 87 of 2020 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 13[th] day of November, 2023 ## O R D E R ## P.B.Suresh Kumar, J. The tenants in five eviction petitions instituted by a common landlord under Section 11(8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (the Act) are the petitioners in this batch of revision petitions. The respondent in the revision petitions is the landlord. The Rent Control Court tried the eviction petitions together and allowed the same and the said decision of the Rent Control Court was affirmed in appeal by the Appellate Authority. The petitioners are aggrieved by the said decisions of the authorities below. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as also the learned counsel for the respondent. 3. The tenanted premises are portions of the ground floor of a multi-storeyed building. The building belonged to one R.C.Rev.Nos.47 of 2020 and con. cases -: 7 :- Abdul Razack. He was running a tourist home in partnership in the upper floors of the building. The petitioners are occupying different portions of the ground floor based on lease arrangements entered into with Abdul Razack who was the then owner of the building as also the managing partner of the firm, who was running the said tourist home in the upper floors of the building. The common case of the respondent in the eviction petitions is that on the death of Abdul Razack, the building devolved on the respondent and other legal representatives of Abdul Razack who are now continuing to run the tourist home in partnership; that the respondent is managing the affairs of the building as also the tourist home and that the tenanted premises are required to expand the business of the tourist home by establishing a multi-cuisine restaurant and also to shift the reception counter of the tourist home from the first floor of the building to the ground floor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that although the petitioners have denied the title of the respondent, the question whether such denial of title of the respondent is bona fide has not been considered either by the Rent Control Court or by the Appellate Authority. According to the learned counsel, in such a ## R.C.Rev.Nos.47 of 2020 and con. cases -: 8 :- case, it is obligatory for the Rent Control Court to consider the question whether the denial of title is bona fide or not, before proceeding to decide the eviction petition on merits. 5. We do not find any merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 6. It is necessary to refer to the counter statements filed by the petitioners in the eviction petitions to get an idea about the nature of the contentions taken by them. The contentions taken in the counter statements are identical. Paragraph 2 of the counter statement filed by the respondent in R.C.P.No.40 of 2017 who is the petitioner in R.C.R. No.48 of 2020 reads thus: “The above petition to get vacant possession of the building on the ground alleged in the petition is not sustainable in law. The petitioner has no manner of right to initiate any litigation against the respondent since the building is not owned and occupied by the petitioner. This respondent specifically denied the landlord tenancy relationship between the petitioner and the respondent. This respondent specifically stated that this petitioner is not the real owner of the petition schedule building. The petitioner should have proved with regarding the title and possession of the petition schedule property in strict sense. It is admitted that a Kacheet was executed to one Thaikandy Abdul Rasak with regarding the tenancy of petition schedule room and the monthly rent was received by the authorised person of Abdul Rasak regularly. Periodical R.C.Rev.Nos.47 of 2020 and con. cases -: 9 :- enhancement of rent also was given to the landlord by this respondent. The description in the petition is not sufficient to prove the possession and ownership of the building.” As evident from the extracted portion of the counter statement, the contention raised is that the respondent is not the owner of the building and that the rental arrangement was between the petitioners and Abdul Razack. As noted, the specific case pleaded by the respondent in the eviction petitions is that the building belonged to Abdul Razack; that Abdul Razack was conducting a tourist home in the upper floors of the building in partnership and that the building devolved on his legal representatives and the respondent being one among them, he not only owns the building now, but is also conducting the tourist home in partnership with other legal representatives of Abdul Razack, indicating clearly that the eviction petitions are instituted in dual capacity not only as the legal representatives of Abdul Razack who owned the building, but also in his capacity as the person who is managing the tourist home on behalf of its partners. It appears that it is in the said circumstances that the authorities below considered the question as to whether the respondent who is one among the legal representatives, is entitled to institute the eviction petitions against the petitioners/tenants R.C.Rev.Nos.47 of 2020 and con. cases -: 10 :- inducted by his predecessor and answered the said question in the affirmative, holding that the contention raised by the petitioners is unsustainable. 7. When the findings rendered by the authorities below in this regard was brought to the notice of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel passed on a copy of Ext.A10 rent kacheet executed by one among the petitioners and a rent receipt issued in the name of the firm which was running the tourist home, and contended based on the same, that the rental arrangements were not between the petitioners and Abdul Razack, but between the petitioners and the firm which was running the tourist home. As noticed, such a contention was not there in the counter statement filed by the petitioners in the eviction petitions at all. In the counter statements, it is categorically admitted by the petitioners that the rent kacheet was executed in favour of Abdul Razack and that the monthly rent was being received by a person authorised by Abdul Razack. 8. Be that as it may, the rent kacheet made available by the petitioners is not one signed by Abdul Razack on behalf of the partnership firm. Instead, the same is merely one executed by one R.C.Rev.Nos.47 of 2020 and con. cases -: 11 :- of the petitioners in favour of Abdul Razack. True, Abdul Razack is described in the rent kacheet as the managing partner of 'Centaur Tourist Home'. The rent kacheet does not state that the tenanted premises is one owned by the firm. Instead, what is stated therein is only that the tenanted premises is part of the tourist home run by the firm. A perusal of the rent kacheet would indicate that the rental arrangement was between the petitioners on one side and Abdul Razack on the other side as pleaded by the petitioners in the counter statement. True, rent receipt is seen issued in the name of the firm. Merely for the reason that rent receipts have been issued by the landlord in the name of the firm, of which he is the managing partner, it cannot be contended by the petitioners that the rental arrangement was with the firm. 9. Even assuming that the rental arrangement was between the petitioners on one side and the firm on the other side, the contention raised by the petitioners cannot be accepted as a bona fide denial of title of the landlord. As noted, the specific case of the respondent in the eviction petition is that on the death of Abdul Razack, the partnership conducting the tourist home has been reconstituted and the respondent is now managing the affairs of the ## R.C.Rev.Nos.47 of 2020 and con. cases -: 12 :- firm and also that the eviction petition has been instituted in his capacity as one of the legal representatives of deceased Abdul Razack as also in his capacity as a person who is managing the affairs of the firm on behalf of its partners. In Abdul Salim v. Mugal Theatre & Padiyans Complex , 2012 SCC OnLine Ker 16960, this Court held that when a firm lets out its property, its partners become joint landlords and in the event the partnership is reconstituted, partners in the reconstituted firm succeed to the rights and liabilities of the original firm and the reconstituted firm would be entitled to institute an eviction petition to evict the tenant inducted by the original firm. The revision petitions, in the circumstances, are devoid of merits and are accordingly dismissed. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the cases as also the orders passed in similar and identical revisions, the petitioners are granted six months' time from today to surrender vacant possession of the premises on condition that they shall file unconditional undertakings before the Rent Control Court within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to vacate the tenanted premises within six months and also that they shall pay the arrears of rent, if R.C.Rev.Nos.47 of 2020 and con. cases -: 13 :- any, within the aforesaid time limit and continue to pay the monthly rent on or before the tenth day of every succeeding month, till they vacate the premises. Sd/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE. Sd/- JOHNSON JOHN, JUDGE. YKB