High Court of KeralaDivision Bench2023-01-09Dismissed; revisions disposed of in favor of th...

RCREV. Nos. 60, 61 & 62 of 2018 (Rent Control Revisions) - High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam

Case / Petition Number:RCREV. Nos. 60, 61 & 62 of 2018

Neutral Citation:/

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. B. Suresh Kumar
C. S. Sudha
Judgment Date: 2023-01-09
Court Decision / Holding: In the result, the Rent Control Revisions are dismissed. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
Final Disposition: Dismissed; revisions disposed of in favor of the landlords/landlords' challenge to the tenant’s permanent tenancy claim; interlocutory matters closed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

P.V. Ramachandran
E.V. Sivanandan
P.V. Jayanandan
P.V. Viayan
C.P. Gopinathan
P. Shyamala

Respondents

Karthiyayani Amma
Pullanhi Gangadhar an
Amudavalli P.
Prameela P.
P. Radha
P. Deepa
P. Nisha

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri Mahesh V Ramakrishnan
• Sri Pramod K.
• Smt. Chithra S. Babu

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri M. Sasindran

Case Synopsis & Summary

These Rent Control revisions under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 challenge the common judgment dated 21.06.2016 in RCA Nos. 73/2009, 74/2009 and 75/2009 (RCAA, Thalassery) against the order dated 07.03.2009 in RCP Nos. 25/2008, 26/2008 and 27/2008 (RCC, Taliparamba). The revision petitioners, tenants by status, contend that Ext. B1 (the 1995 lease/development agreement) evidence supports a permanent tenancy over the premises and thus eviction under Sections 11(3) and 11(4)(ii) is unwarranted. The RCC had found the permanent tenancy claim bona fide, while the RCAA reversed, holding the tenancy claim not bona fide and remanding for adjudication on eviction. The revision petitions argue illegality in those findings and urge relief on the basis of the second proviso to Section 11(1) and related registration requirements. The Respondents-landlords emphasize that Ext. B1 is an unregistered document, cannot establish a perpetual lease, and can only serve as collateral evidence; reliance on Registration Act s.17(1)(d) and s.49, and Transfer of Property Act s.107 is argued to bar a perpetual tenancy. The High Court ultimately holds Ext. B1 insufficient to establish a perpetual tenancy, sustains the RCAA’s conclusion, and directs the RCC to decide eviction within one month, dismissing the revisions.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 - Section 11(3) and 11(4)(ii)Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 - second proviso to Section 11(1)Registration Act, 1908 - Section 17(1)(d) (read with Section 49)Registration Act, 1908 - Section 49Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 107

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Bona fide doctrine (as to whether tenancy is genuine)
Collateral transaction (per proviso to Section 49)
Perpetual lease concept
Unregistered instrument cannot prove lease beyond one year (Registration Act requirements)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The revision petitioners (tenants) contend that Ext. B1 material, including the construction of three rooms and the upfront deposit, evidences a lease creating permanent tenancy. They rely on the adjunctive reading of Sec. 11(1)’s second proviso and the Registration Act provisions (Sec. 17(1)(d) with Sec. 49) to contend that a long-term or perpetual tenancy can be created by a lease evidenced by Ext. B1, albeit via a collateral transaction. They submit that the RCC’s finding as to permanency is bona fide and that remand for eviction proceedings under Sections 11(3) and 11(4)(ii) was proper but cannot negate the underlying tenancy claim absent a proper legal basis.

Contentions of Respondents

The petitioners-landlords argue Ext. B1 is an unregistered document, cannot prove a perpetual lease, and at best proves only a collateral transaction. They submit that a lease from year to year or for a term exceeding one year must be on a registered instrument (Sec. 17(1)(d) r/w Sec. 49; Sec. 107 of the Transfer of Property Act). They contend the permanent tenancy claim is not bona fide and that Ext. B1 cannot create a perpetual tenancy, so the RCC/RCAA findings were incorrect in treating the tenancy claim as bona fide.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Food Corporation of India v. M/s. V.K. Traders	AIR 2020 SC 2256	Mentioned Only	Cited to support the proposition that an unregistered document cannot prove a perpetual lease; not expressly applied as a binding ruling in the instant matter.
Sreedharan Nair v. A.G. Kannan	2010 KHC 741	Mentioned Only	Cited in context of registration requirements affecting long leases; treated as a supportive reference rather than a binding precedent.

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 RCREV. Nos. 60, 61 & 62 of 2018 (Rent Control Revisions) - High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam 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 P.B.SURESH KUMAR** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA** **MONDAY, THE 9[TH] DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 19TH POUSHA, 1944** **RCREV. NO. 60 OF 2018** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.06.2016 IN RCA NO.74/2009 OF RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY,THALASSERY AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 07.03.2009 IN RCP NO.26/2008** **OF RENT CONTROL COURT, TALIPARAMBA** ## **REVISION PETITIONERS:** **1 P.V. RAMACHANDRAN, AGED 62 YEARS, S/O. AMMALU AMMA, AGED 62 YEARS, PANDARI VEETTIL, TALIPARAMBA AMSOM, TRICHAMBARAM DESOM, P.O. TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR-670 141. 2 E. V. SIVANANDAN, AGED 63 YEARS, S/O. AMMALU AMMA, AGED 63 YEARS, PANDARI VEETTIL, TALIPARAMBA AMSOM, TRICHAMBARAM DESOM, P.O. TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR-670 141.** **3 P. V. JAYANANDAN, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O. AMMALU AMMA, AGED 59 YEARS, PANDARI VEETTIL, TALIPARAMBA AMSOM, TRICHAMBARAM DESOM, P.O. TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR-670 141. 4 P. V. VIAYAN, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O. AMMALU AMMA, AGED 58 YEARS, PANDARI VEETTIL, TALIPARAMBA AMSOM, TRICHAMBARAM DESOM, P.O. TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR-670 141.** **BY ADVS. SRI.MAHESH V RAMAKRISHNAN SRI.PRAMOD K. SMT.CHITHRA S.BABU** **R.C.R.Nos.60, 61 & 62 of 2018** **2** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 KARTHIYAYANI AMMA, AGED 80 YEARS, D/O. LATE PULLANHI GOPALAN, AGED 80 YEARS.** - **2 PULLANHI GANGADHARAN, S/O. LATE PULLANHI GOPALAN.** - **3 AMUDAVALLI P., AGED 50 YEARS, D/O. LATE PULLANHI GOPALAN, AGED 50 YEARS.** - **4 PRAMEELA P., AGED 46 YEARS, D/O. LATE PULLANHI GOPALAN, AGED 46 YEARS.** - **5 P. RADHA, AGED 45 YEARS, D/O. LATE PULLANHI GOPALAN, AGED 45 YEARS.** - **6 P. DEEPA, AGED 40 YEARS, D/O. LATE PULLANHI GOPALAN, AGED 40 YEARS.** - **7 P. NISHA, AGED 37 YEARS, D/O. LATE PULLANHI GOPALAN.** **ALL ARE RESIDING AT POOKKOTH NADA, P.O. TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR-670 141.** **BY ADV SRI.M.SASINDRAN** **THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL** **HEARING ON 09.01.2023, ALONG WITH RCRev..61/2018 & 62/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **R.C.R.Nos.60, 61 & 62 of 2018** **3** **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 9[TH] DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 19TH POUSHA, 1944** **RCREV. NO. 61 OF 2018** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.06.2016 IN RCA NO.73/2009 OF RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY,THALASSERY AGAINST THE JUDGMENT/ORDER DATED 07.03.2009 IN RCP NO.25/2008 OF RENT CONTROL COURT, TALIPARAMBA** ## **REVISION PETITIONERS:** **1 P.V.RAMACHANDRAN, AGED 62 YEARS,** **S/O.AMMALU AMMA, AGED 62 YEARS, PANDARI VEETTIL, TALIPARAMBA AMSOM,TRICHAMABARAM DESOM, P.O.TALIPARAMBA,KANNUR-670 141.** **2 E.V.SIVANANDAN, S/O.AMMALU AMMA, AGED 63 YEARS, PANDARI VEETTIL, TALIPARAMBA AMSOM,TRICHAMABARAM DESOM, P.O.TALIPARAMBA,KANNUR-670 141.** **BY ADVS. SRI.MAHESH V RAMAKRISHNAN SMT.CHITHRA S.BABU SRI.K.PRAMOD** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 KARTHIYAYANI AMMA, D/O.LATE PULLANHI GOPALAN, AGED 80 YEARS.** - **2 PULLANHI GANGADHARAN, S/O.LATE PULLANHI GOPALAN.** - **3 AMUDAVALLI.P., D/O.LATE PULLANHI GOPALAN, AGED 50 YEARS.** **R.C.R.Nos.60, 61 & 62 of 2018** **4** - **4 PRAMEELA P., D/O.LATE PULLANHI GOPALAN, AGED 46 YEARS.** - **5 P.RADHA, D/O.LATE PULLANHI GOPALAN, AGED 45 YEARS.** - **6 P.DEEPA, D/O.LATE PULLANHI GOPALAN, AGED 40 YEARS.** - **7 P.NISHA,** **D/O.LATE PULLANHI GOPALAN, AGED 37 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT POOKKOTH NADA,P.O.TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR-670 141. BY ADV SRI.M.SASINDRAN** **THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 09.01.2023, ALONG WITH RCRev..60/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **R.C.R.Nos.60, 61 & 62 of 2018** **5** **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 9[TH] DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 19TH POUSHA, 1944 RCREV. NO. 62 OF 2018** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.06.2016 IN RCA NO.75/2009 OF RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY,THALASSERY AGAINST THE JUDGMENT/ORDER DATED 07.03.2009 IN RCP NO. 27/2008 OF RENT CONTROL COURT, TALIPARAMBA** ## **REVISION PETITIONERS:** **1 P.V. RAMACHANDRAN, S/O AMMALU AMMA,AGED 62 YEARS,PANDARI VEETTIL,TALIPARAMBA AMSOM,TRICHAMBARAM DESOM,P.O.TALIPARAMBA,KANNUR-670141.** **2 E.V.SIVANANDAN, S/O.AMMALU AMMA,AGED 63 YEARS,PANDARI VEETTIL,TALIPARAMBA AMSOM,TRICHAMBARAM DESOM,P.O.TALIPARAMBA,KANNUR-670141. 3 C.P.GOPINATHAN, S/O KAMALAKSHI AMMA,AGED 56 YEARS,CHENICHERI PINDAPRAPPALLI VEETTIL,KURUMATHUR AMSOM,MUNDERI DESOM,P.O.MUNDERI,TALIPARAMBA,KANNUR-670591.** **4 P.SHYAMALA, D/O.SAROJINI AMMA,AGED 49 YEARS,PALAKKALA VEETTIL,MORAZHA AMSOM DESOM,TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR-670 331.** **BY ADVS. SRI.MAHESH V RAMAKRISHNAN SMT.CHITHRA.S.BABU SRI.K.PRAMOD** **R.C.R.Nos.60, 61 & 62 of 2018** **6** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 KARTHIYAYANI AMMA, D/O LATE PULLANHI GOPALAN,AGED 80 YEARS.** - **2 PULLANHI GANGADHARAN, S/O LATE PULLANHI GOPALAN.** - **3 AMUDAVALLI P, D/O.LATE PULLANHI GOPALAN,AGED 50 YEARS,** - **4 PRAMEELA P., D/O LATE PULLANHI GOPALAN,AGED 46 YEARS.** - **5 P.RADHA,** - **D/O.LATE PULLANHI GOPALAN,AGED 45 YEARS.** - **6 P.DEEPA,** - **D/O.LATE PULLANHI GOPALAN,AGED 40 YEARS.** - **7 P.NISHA,** - **D/O.LATE PULLANHI GOPALAN,AGED 37 YEARS.** - **ALL ARE RESIDING AT POOKKOTH NADA,P.O.TALIPARAMBA,KANNUR-670141.** **BY ADV SRI.M.SASINDRAN** **THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 09.01.2023, ALONG WITH RCRev..60/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **R.C.R.Nos.60, 61 & 62 of 2018** **7** ## **P.B.SURESH KUMAR & C.S.SUDHA, JJ.** **--------------------------------------------------** **R.C.R.Nos.60, 61 & 62 of 2018** **------------------------------------------Dated this the 09[th] day of January, 2023** ## **O R D E R** ## **C.S.Sudha, J.** These rent control revisions under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (the Act) have been filed against the common judgment dated 21.06.2016 in R.C.A.Nos.73/2009, 74/2009 and 75/2009 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (RCAA), Thalassery, which appeals are against the common order dated 07.03.2009 in R.C.P. Nos.25/2008, 26/2008 and 27/2008 respectively on the file of the Rent Control Court (RCC), Taliparamba. The petitioners herein are the respondents-tenants in the R.C.Ps. The respondents are the petitioners-landlords in the R.C.Ps. The parties and the documents will be referred to as described in the R.C.Ps. 2. R.C.P. Nos.25/2008, 26/2008 and 27/2008 were filed by the petitioners-landlords against the respondents-tenants seeking eviction under Sections 11(3) and 11(4)(ii) of the Act. The respondents relying on Ext.B1 agreement claimed right of permanent tenancy over the tenanted **R.C.R.Nos.60, 61 & 62 of 2018** **8** premises. The RCC considered the matter in the light of the second proviso to Section 11(1) and held the claim of permanent tenancy to be _bona fide_ . In the appeals filed by the landlords, the findings of the RCC has been reversed and the appeals have been allowed. The order of the RCC was set aside and the claim of permanent tenancy raised by the tenants has been found to be not _bona fide_ . The matter was remanded to the RCC to adjudicate the question whether the landlords are entitled to an order of eviction under Sections 11(3) and 11(4)(ii) of the Act. Aggrieved the tenants have come up in revision. 3. The only point that arises for consideration is, whether the findings of the RCC or the RCAA suffer from any illegality, irregularity or impropriety. 4. Heard the learned counsel for both sides. 5. Execution of Ext. B1 agreement is not disputed by the landlords. As per Ext.B1, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitionerslandlords permitted the respondents to construct three rooms on the first floor of the building housing the three petition schedule rooms already in the possession of the tenants. Ext.B1 reveals that the tenants were in possession of rooms bearing No.TMC XI-204, 205 and 206. As per Ext.B1, tenants were permitted to construct three rooms on top of the **R.C.R.Nos.60, 61 & 62 of 2018** **9** aforesaid three tenanted premises. The amount spent for construction was agreed to be treated as a deposit. It was further agreed that the tenants can continue in the premises as long as they desired. The relevant portions in Ext.B1 agreement dated 15.03.1995 reads:- “നമളളല 1-)o നമക�രന ഗ��പ�ലന� സ�ന� വകയ�യ തളളപറമ അ�ശ� - തച�ബര� ഗ!ശത# തളളപറമ കണര ന�ഷണല ഹ)നവയന+ പ+ളഞ�റ# ഭ��ത# പഗ/�ത# ന+/# സമ1പ� കളഴഗ/�ട# മഖമ�യള സളതള ന7യന TMC.XI.204, 205, 206 നമ പ1+ളക മറളകളളല, നമളളല 2, 3, 4 നമക�ര�യ ര�മ7നന, ശളവ�നനന, ഗ��പളന�ഥന എനളവര 1-)o നമക�രന ഗ��പ�ലന# എഴതള തന വ�+ക കചളട# പക�ര� വ�+ക/# ഏറവ�ങള ഹകവശ� നവച# ക�സളക# ഇലകള/ലസ#, ക�സളക# ഹപപ# ഗവരസ# എന1 സ�പനങള ന+തളവരനണനJ�. ഗമല നമ മറളകളന+ (തറ നളല/# മകളളല) ഉപരളതലതളല ഗക�ണN1റ# നക�ണ# മന# മറളകള 2, 3, 4, 5 നമക�ര�യ ര�മ7നന, ശളവ�നനന, ഗ��പളന�ഥന, ന�ര�യണന എന1 4 -)ളന+ 7ളലവളല� ഉതരവ�!ളത�തളല� നളരമളകനതളന 1-)o നമക�രന ഗ��പ�ലന ത�നഴ പറയന നളശയങള പക�ര� അനവ�!� തരളകയ� 2, 3, 4, 5 നമക�ര അത# അ��1കരളകകയ� ന7യളരളകന. നളരമ�ണ പവതളകള ത+ങനതളന ഗവണള മനളസളപല ആഫ1സമ�യള ബനനപട# അനമതള വ�ങനതളനള എJ� റള/�ര^കളളല� 1-)o നമക�രന ഒപളടതരനതമ�ണ#. 2, 3, 4, 5 നമക�രന+ 7ളലവളല മറളകളന+ മഴവന പവതളയ� പരതളയ�യ�ല ഇലകളസളറള കണകന കളടനതളന� മനളസളപ�ലളറളയളല നളന� മറളകള/# നമര ഇട# ഓണരഷളപ# സരടളഫള/റ# കളടനതളനള മഴവന അഗപകകളളല� മറ# ഗമല പറഞ മറളകള സ�ബനളച# എJ� ആവശcങളക� ഗവണള വര�വന മഴവന റള/�ര^കളളല� നമളളല 1-)o നമക�രന ഗ��പ�ലന ഒപളട തരവ�ന� നളശയളചളരളകന. പവതളകള പരതളയ�യള/ഴളഞ�ല ഗമല പറഞ മറളകള മഴവന 2, 3, 4, 5 നമക�ര/# തനന 1-)o നമക�രന മറള ഒനളന 350 ക മനറയളമതറപളക പക�ര� മ�സ വ�+ക കണ/�/ള ഏലളച തരനത� കചളട# ഒപളട# വ�ങള അതളന� ഗക�പളയളല 1-)o നമക�രന 2, 3, 4, 5 നമക�ര/# . ഒപളടതരനതമ�ണ# ഗമല പറഞ മറളകളന+ നളരമ�ണ 7ളലവ# മറളകളന+ മ�നഷമ�യള കണ/�/�ന� നമള നളശയളചളരളകന. ഗമല പറഞ മറളകള 2, 3, 4, 5 നമക�ര/# ഇഷമള ക�ലഗത�ള� ഹകവശ� നവച# കചവ+� ന7യ�വനതമ�ണ#.” ## 6. On the basis of the aforesaid recitals, the tenants have raised the claim of permanent tenancy. Here we refer to Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, which refers to documents that are required to be **R.C.R.Nos.60, 61 & 62 of 2018** **10** registered. Clause (d) of sub-section (1) says that leases of immovable property from year to year, or for any term exceeding one year, or reserving a yearly rent is required to be compulsorily registered. Further, Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 says that a lease of immovable property from year to year, or for any term exceeding one year or reserving a yearly rent, can be made only by a registered instrument. All other leases of immovable property can be made either by a registered instrument or by oral agreement accompanied by delivery of possession. Going by the contentions of the respondents, Ext.B1 creates a perpetual lease. Section 17 (1)(d) r/w Section 49 of the Registration Act stands in the way of any claim of perpetual lease on the basis of Ext.B1, which is an unregistered document. Ext.B1 cannot be relied on as evidence of the perpetual lease which is claimed. At best, Ext.B1 can be relied on as evidence of a collateral transaction as envisaged by the proviso to Section 49. The main transaction sought to be proved is of a lease in perpetuity. Such a transaction cannot be created by Ext.B1. In the absence of a registered document for proving the transaction of perpetual lease or lease for a period exceeding one year, Ext.B1 cannot come to the aid of the respondents-tenants. (See **Food Corporation of India v. M/s. V.K. Traders, AIR 2020 SC 2256** and **Sreedharan Nair v. A.G. Kannan,** **R.C.R.Nos.60, 61 & 62 of 2018** **11** **2010 KHC 741** ). Hence the RCAA was right in concluding that the claim of permanent tenancy put forward by the tenants on the basis of Ext.B1 is not _bona fide_ . As the ground under Sections 11(3) and 11(4)(ii) urged in the R.C.P. has not been considered by the RCC, the RCAA was right in remanding the matter. No impropriety, illegality or irregularity has been shown in the findings of the RCAA. Since the R.C.Ps. are of the year 2008, we direct the RCC to dispose of the matter within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Parties to appear before the RCC on **01.03.2023** . The lower court records shall be transmitted to the RCC forthwith. In the result, the Rent Control Revisions are dismissed. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. **Sd/-** **P.B.SURESH KUMAR JUDGE** **Sd/C.S.SUDHA JUDGE** ak