Dismissed

Muhammed Rafeeq v. Sulaiman Kunjumuhammad

Kerala HC19 Mar 2018OP (RC)/30/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court dismissed an original petition under Article 226 challenging the dismissal of a landlord's maintainability application. The Court held that pleadings and a prior civil judgment admitted the landlord-tenant relationship, making the landowner's denial of title not bonafide.

What did the court decide?

The original petition was dismissed for lack of merit. The impugned order upholding the Rent Control Court's finding was affirmed.

Muhammed Rafeeq Vs Sulaiman Kunjumuhammad — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI

¶6

MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 28TH PHALGUNA, 1939

¶7

OP (RC).No. 30 of 2018

¶8

ORDER DATED 24/1/2018 IN IA NO.1197/2017 IN RCP NO.5/2016 OF THE RENT CONTROL COURT, ALATHUR

¶9

PETITIONER(S)

¶10

MUHAMMED RAFEEQ S/O KABEER, AGED 43 YEARS, RESIDING AT NABEER MANZIL, LINK ROAD, ALATHUR TOWN, ALATHUR TALUK,PALAKKAD DISTRICT

¶11

BY ADV.SRI.BABY MATHEW

¶12

RESPONDENT(S):

¶13

SULAIMAN KUNJUMUHAMMAD S/O KUNUUHAMMED, AGED 59 YEARS, NEW MOSQUE, ALATHUR TOWN, ALATHUR TALUK, REPRESENTED BY MUKHIAR AGENT, ASHIF,S/O JABBAR ALI, AGED 33 YEARS, RESIDING AT BUILTECH AVENUE, PIRIVUSALA, PALAKAKD.678001

¶14

THIS OP (RENT CONTROL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

OP (RC).No. 30 of 2018 (O)

¶16

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶18

EXHIBITP1:	TRUE COPY OF THE RENT CONTROL PETITION DATED 11/04.2016 IN RCP NO.5/2016
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT DATED 16/01/2017
EXHIBIT P3:	TRUE COPY OF PETITION DATED 22/07/2017 IN IA 1197/2017
EXHIBI P4:	TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 17/01/2018 IN IA 1197/2017
EXHIBIT P5:	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 13/11/2015 IN OS NO.237/2014
EXHIBIT P6:	TRUE COPY OF THE 24/01/2018 IN IA NO.1197/2017
	// TRUE COPY //

¶19

P.S. TO JUDGE

¶20

KAV/

¶21

P.N.RAVINDRAN & R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, JJ.

¶22

=-=-==-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

¶23

O.P.(R.C.)No.30 of 2018

¶24

=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 19^th day of March, 2018

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

P.N.Ravindran, J.

¶27

Ext.P6 order passed by the Rent Control Court, Alathur on 24.1.2018 dismissing I.A.No.1197 of 2017 in R.C.P.No.5 of 2016, an application filed by the petitioner herein under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure with the prayer that the maintainability of R.C.P.No.5 of 2016 may be considered as a “prime point” before going for full-fledged trial, is under challenge in this original petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶28

The case set out in the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.1197 of 2017 (a copy of which is on record as Ext.P3) is that the petition for eviction does not reveal landlord-tenant relationship, that there is no positive averment by the petitioner that he has rented out the premises to the respondent and in such circumstances, before trial it is necessary to adjudicate upon the point of maintainability of the petition as urged in the counter statement. The case set out by the petitioner in the counter statement filed in R.C.P.No.5 of 2016 (a copy of which is on record as Ext.P2) as regards the maintainability of the petition is as follows:

¶29

O.P.(R.C.)No.30 of 2018

¶30

-:2:-

¶31

“ 3. If the contention of the petitioner is accepted the petition has to be dismissed summarily, without any further enquiry. If this Honourable court consider the pleadings in the above petition as a whole, the present petition cannot be entertained legally and this court will not get any jurisdiction to try and dispose of the above petition. No wherein the petition it is averred that the respondent is the tenant under the petitioner of the petition schedule property. Since there is no averment in the petition to the effect that petitioner is the land lord and the respondent is the tenant, this petition cannot be tried by this Honourable court since there is no land lord tenant relationship averred in the petition this Honourable court ought not to have numbered the petition itself and the petition is liable to be dismissed in limine. ”

¶32

The case set out in paragraph 3 is that there is no averment in the petition to the effect that the petitioner is the landlord and the respondent is the tenant and therefore, the petition cannot be tried as there is no landlord-tenant relationship.

¶33

The case set out in the rent control petition (a copy of which is on record as Ext.P1) is that the petition schedule building belongs to the landlord and that the tenant is running a bakery therein under the name and style “Golden Store”. The date of entrustment is stated to be 1.5.2013. The rent control petition also refers to the institution of O.S.No.237 of 2014 by the tenant and its dismissal. The landlord has also referred to a plea taken by the tenant in O.S.No.237 of 2014 that he has not affixed his signature in the rent deed relied on by the landlord. The respondent has in R.C.P.No.5 of 2016 averred that the tenant has kept the rent in arrears from May 2013 and that he

¶34

O.P.(R.C.)No.30 of 2018

¶35

-:3:-

¶36

bonafide needs the building for his daughter who intends to start a business in garments in the petition schedule building. In the rent control petition, the date of entrustment is shown as 1.5.2013. There is also a reference to the lawyer's notice dated 15.12.2015 stated to have been issued by the landlord. The landlord resisted I.A.No.1197 of 2017 by filing Ext.P4 objections wherein, relying on the plaint in O.S.No.237 of 2014 he contended that the tenant, who had in the plaint in O.S.No.237 of 2014 admitted the fact that he is a tenant, is estopped from contending otherwise.

¶37

The rent control court considered the rival contentions and dismissed I.A.No.1197 of 2017 by the impugned order, a copy of which is produced and marked as Ext.P6. The rent control court held that what is envisaged under the proviso to section 11(1) of the Act is only an adjudication of the question as to whether the denial of title is bonafide and that an enquiry into the question whether the landlord has valid title is not warranted. The rent control court also held that from the pleadings of both sides it is evident that there is landlordtenant relationship between the parties.

¶38

Sri.Baby Mathew, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner contended that the landlord had contested O.S.No.237 of 2014 contending inter alia that there is no landlord-tenant relationship

¶39

O.P.(R.C.)No.30 of 2018

¶40

-:4:-

¶41

between the parties, that he had also denied the averment in the plaint that the plaint schedule property was taken after executing a rent deed and therefore, the respondent cannot thereafter contend for the position that there is landlord-tenant relationship between the parties. Learned counsel contended that the rent control court ought to have in such circumstances held that the denial of title is bonafide and referred the parties to the civil court.

¶42

We are afraid there is no merit in the said contention. The petitioner had in the plaint in O.S. No.237 of 2014 stated in categorical terms that he is a tenant of the defendant. He had instituted O.S.No.237 of 2014 apprehending forcible eviction. The civil court did not in Ext.P5 judgment dismissing the suit, enter a finding that there is no landlord-tenant relationship between the parties. All that the civil court had held was that the petitioner has not succeeded in proving any sort of right in the plaint schedule property. The civil court also held that the plaintiff has no cause of action for the suit. It was in view of the aforesaid finding that the suit was dismissed. In Ext.P2, a copy of the counter statement filed in R.C.P.No.5 of 2016, the petitioner has admitted the fact that the brother-in-law of the landlord was collecting rent from him. The relevant averments in that regard contained in paragraph 4 of Ext.P2 counter statement in R.C.P.No.5 of 2016 are

¶43

O.P.(R.C.)No.30 of 2018

¶44

-:5:-

¶45

extracted below:

¶46

“ 4. The averment that the respondent did not pay any amount towards the arrears of rent for the period from 2013 May to 2016 April, at the rate of Rs.5,600/- is incorrect statements hence the same is denied. The averment that the is a sum of Rs.2,01,600/- is due on account of arrears of rent and that the defendant is liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum are incorrect statements hence the same are denied. It is submitted that the plaintiff's brother in law was collecting rent from the respondent. In fact an agreement was entered into between the plaintiff and his brother-in-law and the plaintiff's brother-in-law has collected a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from the respondent, stating that he has been authorized to do so. ”

¶47

It is evident from the aforesaid averments that the petitioner

¶48

has been paying rent to the respondent. The petitioner has no case that he is the owner of the building. He admits the fact that the respondent is the owner of the building. The Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 defines the term “tenant” to mean a person by whom rent is payable for a building. The petitioner has in paragraph 4 of Ext.P2 counter statement conceded the fact that he is paying rent to the respondent and that it was the respondent's brother-in-law who was collecting rent from him. In such circumstances, we are of the opinion that the denial of title cannot be said to be bonafide. Having regard to the pleadings and the materials on record, the finding entered by the rent control court in Ext.P6 order that the denial of title is not bonafide cannot be said to be perverse

¶49

O.P.(R.C.)No.30 of 2018

¶50

-:6:-

¶51

warranting interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction conferred on this court under Section 20 of the Act.

¶52

We accordingly hold that there is no merit in the instant original

¶53

petition. It fails and is accordingly dismissed.

¶54

P.N.RAVINDRAN JUDGE

¶55

R.NARAYANA PISHARADI JUDGE

¶56

vpv

Muhammed Rafeeq v. Sulaiman Kunjumuhammad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammed Rafeeq v. Sulaiman Kunjumuhammad

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

Premini @ Prema Vs Ranjinisree Rajendran

Sindhu Vs Venugopal

Maya and 3 Others Vs Sreekumar and Another

C.E.Subramanya Vs M.H.Subramanya Bhat

R. Narayan Vs Abdul Jaleel

A.Rajan Vs R.C.Murukesan