R.C. Rev. No. 285 of 2014. Case: M.C. Abdul Gafoor Vs K. Abdurahiman and Ors.. High Court of Kerala (India)
| Case Number | R.C. Rev. No. 285 of 2014 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: G.S. Reghunath, Adv. and For Respondents: R.T. Pradeep, Adv. |
| Judges | Antony Dominic and Alexander Thomas, JJ. |
| Issue | Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 - Sections 7, 7(2); Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Order XLI Rule 22; Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 - Sections 11, 11(10), 11(2)(b), 11(3), 11(4), 11(4)(i), 11(4)(ii), 11(4)(iv), 11(7), 11(8), 18, 20, 8 |
| Citation | 2015 (2) KLJ 213 |
| Judgement Date | February 05, 2015 |
| Court | High Court of Kerala (India) |
Order:
Antony Dominic, J.
-
This revision petition is filed by the second respondent in R.C.P. 29/11 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Tirur, who also unsuccessful before the appellate authority which dismissed RCA. 1/13 filed by him. Briefly stated, the case was that the first respondent herein, the landlord, filed R.C.P. 29/11 before the Rent Control Court, Tirur. In that R.C.P., he contended that by Ext. A43 lease deed dated 2.6.1997, shoprooms bearing Nos. 6/533A and 6/553E in KSM Complex of Tirur Municipality were let out to the second respondent herein. According to him, there were arrears of rent and the tenant had also sub-leased the building to the petitioner herein. He also contended that he bona fide needed the building for his own occupation. On the above facts, he sought for eviction of the tenant and the sub-tenant who were impleaded as respondents 1 and 2 in the petition, urging grounds under sections 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(4)(i) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965, hereinafter, the 'Act', for short.
-
Before the Rent Control Court, the first respondent was examined as PW 1 and he produced Exts. A1 to A45. On behalf of the respondents in the R.C.P., the appellant herein and another person were examined as RWs. 1 and 2 and Exts. B1 to B31 were also marked in evidence. Exts. C1 and C2, commission report and plan were also marked. On conclusion of the trial, the Rent Control Court, by its order dated 8.11.2012, allowed eviction sought for by the landlord under section 11(4)(i) and disallowed the eviction sought for under sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3).
-
The petitioner herein, second respondent in the R.C.P., the sub-tenant, filed appeal as RCA. 1/13 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Manjeri. In that appeal, the landlord, first respondent herein, filed a cross appeal. The appellate authority disposed of the appeal and the cross appeal by its judgment dated 20.8.2014. In that judgment, following the judgment of this Court in Susheela v. Balakrishnan, 2014(1) KLT 1004, it was held that the cross appeal filed by the landlord was not maintainable and the same was dismissed for that reason. However, relying on Susheela (supra), the appellate authority set aside the order passed by the Rent Control Court on the ground under section 11(2)(b) of the Act. It also confirmed the order passed by the Rent Control Court under section 11(4)(i). In other words, the appeal filed by the sub-tenant was dismissed by the appellate authority and the ground under section 11(2)(b) was found in favour of the landlord. This revision petition has been filed by the second respondent in the R.C.P., the sub-tenant.
-
We heard the counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent landlord. Despite service of notice, there was no appearance or representation for the 2nd respondent, the tenant.
-
The first contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the judgment of the appellate authority, setting aside the order of the Rent Control Court under section 11(2)(b), is illegal. According to him, when the cross appeal filed by the landlord was held to be not maintainable, the appellate authority could not have reversed the findings of the Rent Control Court in favour of the tenant under section 11(2)(b) of the Act. However, this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was contradicted by the counsel for the first respondent appellant by pointing out that the competence of the appellate authority to examine the correctness of the order passed by the Rent Control Court, even in the absence of an appeal by the landlord, has been recognised by this Court in the judgment in Susheela (supra).
-
As we have already stated, the R.C.P. was filed under sections 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(4)(i) of the Act and eviction was ordered only under section 11(4)(i). It is true that the landlord did not file any appeal against the judgment of the Rent Control Court and his cross appeal was found to be not maintainable. However, before the appellate authority, he contested the findings of the Rent Control Court under section 11(2)(b) and it was upholding his contention, the appellate authority reversed the findings of the Rent Control Court under section 11(2)(b). The question that is raised is whether this was permissible in the absence...
To continue reading
Request your trial