Allowed

Vahida and Others v. Kasim Beevi

Kerala HC9 Dec 2013RCRev./4/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Landlords filed a revision challenging findings by the Rent Control Court and Appellate Authority that denied a landlord-tenant relationship. The High Court allowed the revision, set aside lower court findings, and remitted the matter to the Rent Control Court to decide eviction grounds, excluding the tenant's plea of title.

What did the court decide?

Rent control revision allowed; lower court findings set aside; matter remitted to Rent Control Court to decide eviction grounds excluding tenant's title plea.

Vahida and Others Vs Kasim Beevi — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA

¶4

MONDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2013/18TH AGRAHAYANA, 1935

¶5

RCRev..No. 4 of 2007 ( )

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN RCA 56/2002 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY.,TRIVANDRUM

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER IN RCP 4/2000 of RENT CONTROL COURT, NEYYATTINKARA

¶8

REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:

¶9

VAHITHA D/O.NOOHU PATHUMMA AGED 37, MUSLIM, MAKKAVAZHI HOUSEHOLD AFFAIRS, VETTUVILAKATHU, S.S.HOUSE BALARAMAPURAM, ATHIYANNOOR DESOM, KOTTUKAL VILLAGE.

¶10

MUJEEB REHMAN, S/O. IBRAHIM, AGED 33, STUDENT, MAKKAVAZHI HOUSEHOLD AFFAIRS, VETTUVILAKATHU, S.S.HOUSE BALARAMAPURAM, ATHIYANNOOR DESOM, KOTTUKAL VILLAGE.

¶11

SAMEENA, D/O. NOOBU PATHUMMA, AGED 35, MAKKAVAZHI, HOUSEHOLD AFFAIRS VETTUVILAKATHU, S.S.HOUSE, BALARAMAPURAM ATHIYANNOOR DESOM, KOTTUKAL VILLAGE.

¶12

NOOHU PATHUMMA, WIDOW OF IBRAHIM, AGED 55, MAKKAVAZHI, HOUSEHOLD AFFAIRS VETTUVILAKATHU, S.S.HOUSE, BALARAMAPURAM ATHIYANNOOR DESOM, KOTTUKAL VILLAGE.

¶13

BY ADVS.SRI.R.S.KALKURA SRI.M.S.KALESH SRI.M.R.SARIN SRI.HARISH GOPINATH SRI.V.VINAY MENON SRI.KIRAN SANKAR

¶14

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COUNTER PETITIONER:

¶15

KASIM BEEVI AGED 61 YEARS, MUSLIM, MAKKAVAZHI HOUSEHOLD AFFAIRS OF THEIR VILAKATHU VEEDU VAZHIMUKKU, ANTHIYOOR DESOM, ANTHIYOOR VILLAGE.

¶16

(DIED)

¶17

ADDL.R2 K.BEEMA BEEVI, AGED 44 YEARS D/O.KASIM BEEVI

¶18

THERUVILAKATHU VEEDU VAZHIMUKKU ATHIYANNOOR VILLAGE, BALARAMAPURAM (ADDL.R2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DT 25.11.13 IN IA.2641/13)

¶19

BY ADV. SRI.BABU CHERUKARA BY ADV. SRI.P.A.SALIM BY ADV. SRI.ANZAR BASHEER BY ADV. SRI.K.S.GIREESAN

¶20

THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09-12-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & B.KEMAL PASHA, JJ. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

¶22

R.C.R.No.4/2007

¶23

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 9^th day of December, 2013

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

Kemal Pasha, J.

¶26

The landlords in respect of a building have come up in revision

¶27

challenging the findings entered by the Rent Control Court as well as the Appellate Authority under Section 11(1) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and

¶28

Rent Control) Act, (hereinafter referred to, as the 'Act').

¶29

Initially, the rent control petition was filed on the grounds under

¶30

Sections 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(4)(iv) of the Act. The landlords have

¶31

pleaded that the building was rented out to one Ahammed Kannu, who is

¶32

the father of the tenant, on a monthly rent of `15/- in the year 1973,

¶33

through Ext.A5 rent deed. According to the landlords, the building was

¶34

leased out to the said Ahammed Kannu by the father of the first petitioner,

¶35

namely, Sheik Mohammed Ibrahim, who was the original landlord. The

¶36

case of the present landlords is that the first petitioner is in bona fide need

¶37

of the building for her own occupation for her residence after effecting

¶38

R.C.R.No.4/2007

¶39

-:2:-

¶40

reconstruction as the said building is in a dilapidated condition. The tenant contended that the predecessor-in-interest of the tenant, late Shri

¶41

Ahammed Kannu was inducted by the then landlord by way of permissive occupation for managing the other properties of the landlord, thereby the

¶42

said late Shri Ahammed Kannu continued to be in occupation of the building. It was also contended that the building is a hut and, thereby the tenant has claimed kudikidappu also. Another contention taken up by the

¶43

tenant is that the tenant is entitled to adverse possession over the building.

¶44

The Rent Control Court, after recording the evidence, entered

¶45

a finding that there is no landlords-tenant relationship between the

¶46

petitioners and the respondent. After entering such a finding, the Rent Control Court erroneously proceeded to consider the grounds of eviction

¶47

under Sections 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(4)(iv) of the Act also. Thereafter, the rent control petition was dismissed and consequently, the rent control

¶48

appeal was filed before the Appellate Authority as R.C.A.No.56/2002. It

¶49

seems that the Appellate Authority has confined its findings only on the

¶50

R.C.R.No.4/2007

¶51

-:3:-

¶52

aspect of Section 11(1) of the Act and approved the findings entered by the

¶53

Rent Control Court that there is no landlords-tenant relationship between

¶54

the parties.

¶55

We heard the learned counsel for the petitioners Shri

¶56

R.S.Kalkura, and learned counsel appearing for the respondent, Shri Babu

¶57

Cherukara.

¶58

Learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out that both

¶59

the courts below have failed to consider Exts.A1 and A2 marked in

¶60

evidence before the Rent Control Court. Ext.A1 is an application for purchase of Kudikidappu filed by the present tenant in respect of the very

¶61

same building stating that it is a hut put up by her predecessor-in-interest in the property. Through Ext.A2 order, the learned Tribunal has dismissed

¶62

the application for Kudikidappu. In Ext.A1, the title of the predecessor-in-

¶63

interest of the petitioners in respect of the property has been clearly admitted. The term “building”, under Section 2(1) of the Act, clearly takes

¶64

in “hut” also. A Kudikidappukaran is not included in the definition of

¶65

R.C.R.No.4/2007

¶66

-:4:-

¶67

tenant. Whatever it is, when the learned Tribunal has entered a finding

¶68

that the tenant is not entitled to Kudikidappu, that is the end of the matter.

¶69

It seems that the said decision has become final. Even though the learned counsel for the tenant has pointed out that an appeal has been preferred

¶70

before the Appellate Authority, Alappuzha there are no pleadings to that

¶71

effect and there is no evidence on that aspect also.

¶72

Regarding the other contentions taken up by the tenant as to

¶73

how the predecessor-in-interest of the tenant came into possession or

¶74

occupation of the building, are also contradictory. The main contention of the tenant is that the predecessor-in-interest of the tenant was permitted to

¶75

put up a building in the petition scheduled property and thereby he put up the same in the year 1925 and continued to be a tenant in the building.

¶76

The other contention is that the tenant is entitled to adverse possession by limitation and is entitled to possessory title. Both the said contentions

¶77

cannot go together. The title of the landlord is admitted by the tenant by

¶78

forwarding such contentions in the objection. Apart from all the above, in

¶79

R.C.R.No.4/2007

¶80

-:5:-

¶81

Ext.A1, by claiming purchase of kudikidappu, it has been clearly admitted

¶82

that the landlords have title over the property.

¶83

On hearing either side, we are satisfied that there is not even a

¶84

bona fide contention regarding the title of the landlords in this case and not

¶85

even such a question arises at all.

¶86

While considering the order passed by the Rent Control Court,

¶87

it has to be noted that when the Rent Control Court had entered a finding

¶88

that there is no landlords-tenant relationship between the parties, the Rent

¶89

Control Court should not have proceeded further to decide the validity of the grounds under Sections 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(4)(iv) of the Act.

¶90

Whatever it is, it is not a question now to be decided, as the Appellate Authority has not entered any finding on those aspects. On hearing either

¶91

side, we are satisfied that the matter has to go back to the Rent Control

¶92

Court for enabling the parties to properly amend the pleadings, if they are

¶93

so advised, and to adduce further evidence on all the grounds taken up by

¶94

the landlords. At the same time, regarding the question of title, we find that

¶95

R.C.R.No.4/2007

¶96

-:6:-

¶97

any such question does not arise at all and that there is no bona fide denial

¶98

of the title of the landlords in this case.

¶99

In the result:

¶100

The rent control revision is allowed and all the findings entered by

¶101

the Rent Control Court as well as the Appellate Authority are set aside, and

¶102

the matter is remitted back to the Rent Control Court for deciding the grounds of eviction under Sections 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(4)(iv) of the Act

¶103

taken up by the landlords, except the contention regarding title set up by

¶104

the tenant. The parties are at liberty to amend their pleadings if so advised, and to adduce fresh evidence.

¶105

Sd/-

¶106

(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge)

¶107

Sd/-

¶108

(B.Kemal Pasha, Judge)

¶109

Vahida and Others v. Kasim Beevi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vahida and Others v. Kasim Beevi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Appu @ Viswambharan Vs Abhishek

Sri.K.R.Sreekumar, Thrissur Vs Cochin Devaswom Board

Suo-Motu Vs Travancore Devaswom Board and Another

Jinan Vs P.K.Abraham

Jose Augustine Vs Commissioner,Kvs

Alex Vs Mary