High Court of Kerala dismissed a rent control revision petition. The Court held the petitioner, who was not a party to the original eviction suit and against whom no eviction order was passed, was not an aggrieved person under Section 18 of the Act.
Revision petition dismissed; all pending interlocutory applications closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANNIE JOHN
THURSDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST 2018 / 11TH SRAVANA, 1940
RCRev..No. 256 of 2018
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 31-05-2018 IN RCA NO.86/2015 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25-09-2015 IN RCP NO.30/2015 of RENT CONTROL COURT, ERNAKULAM
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT:-
MINI JAMES, W/O.JAMES, AGED 48,IV/706,NEDUVELI VEETIL, PALLIPRAM KARA, VAZHAKKALA VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, EDAPPALLY, KOCHI 682 024.
BY ADVS.SRI.K.C.CHARLES
SMT.A.T.RENJU
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS IN R.C.P. AND RESPONDENT:-
1. EMIL J THACHIL, S/O. JOHN T.K, AGED 37, THACHIL HOSUE, CHEMBUKAVU DESOM, TRICHUR VILLAGE, TRISSUR 680 020, NOW RESIDING AT THAYANKERI HOUSE, PALLIPRAM KARA, MAROTTICHOLDE,VAZHAKKALA VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, KOCHI 682 024.
2. THANU MARIA GEORGE, W/O. EMIL J. THACHIL, AGED 31, THACHIL HOSUE, CHEMBUKAVU DESOM, TRICHUR VILLAGE, TRISSUR 680 020, NOW RESIDING AT THAYANKERI HOUSE, PALLIPRAM KARA, MAROTTICHOLDE,VAZHAKKALA VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, KOCHI 682 024.
3. ANTONY PIOS, S/O. FRANCIS, AGED 55, KANAPPALLY HOUSE, SAMBALLOOR DESON, K.V PURAM VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM THALUK, TRICHUR DISTRICT.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.P. MARTIN JOSE (CAVEATOR)
THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-08-2018,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
DST
K. HARILAL & ANNIE JOHN,JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.C.R.No.256 of 2018
- - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 2nd day of August, 2018
O R D E R
K. Harilal, J.
The revision petitioner is the appellant in R.C.A. No.86 of 2015 of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Ernakulam. The aforesaid appeal was filed, challenging an order of eviction passed under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings(Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') . The appellant was not a party to the Rent Control Petition No.30 of 2015. Though she has filed Interlocutory Application No.6701 of 2015 in the aforesaid Rent Control Petition, seeking to get impleaded in the proceedings, the said application was dismissed. Subsequently, the order granting
R.C.R. No.256 of 2018
-: 2 :-
eviction under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) was
passed in the said Rent Control Petition. The revision petitioner, who was not a party to the rent control proceedings, challenged the order passed on merits in the Rent Control Petition on various grounds before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority considered the preliminary point, whether the revision petitioner has locus standi to file an appeal and after considering the rival pleas, the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal, on a finding that the revision petitioner has failed to prove her locus standi to file the appeal and also her right to get the order of eviction passed in R.C.P. No.30 of 2015 set aside and that the revision petitioner is not an aggrieved person, as contemplated under Section 18 of the Act. The legality and propriety of the aforesaid finding,
R.C.R. No.256 of 2018
-: 3 :-
are challenged in this revision petition.
petitioner.
She had availed a loan from the father of the 2nd respondent and towards security to the transaction
the revision petitioner had to execute two sale
R.C.R. No.256 of 2018
deeds in respect of the building and property and subsequently, the revision petitioner instituted a suit in Sub Court, Ernakulam as IOP No.1 of 2015 for a declaration of title and possession over the petition schedule building and consequential injunction and the said suit is pending consideration. Even after the execution of those documents in favour of the father of the 2nd respondent, the revision petitioner continued to be in possession of the petition schedule building. The impleading petition was filed on the above premises.
R.C.R. No.256 of 2018
dismissed the said application, on a finding that
the revision petitioner has no locus standi to get impleaded in the rent control proceedings. It is
not disputed that no appeal has been filed, challenging the said order and the said order has attained a finality. Thereafter, the revision petitioner has filed this appeal, challenging the order granting eviction under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act on merits.
passed in Interlocutory Application No.6701 of 2015 was not produced before the Appellate Authority in the said appeal. The reasoning, whereby the application seeking to implead her was dismissed by
the Rent Control Court, was not brought to the notice of the Appellate Authority. It is true that under Section 18 of the Act, any person aggrieved by
R.C.R. No.256 of 2018
-: 6 :-
an order passed by the Rent Control Court may, within thirty days from the date of such order, prefer an appeal in writing to the Appellate Authority having jurisdiction. What is the scope and extent of 'any person' contemplated under Section 18 of the Act? This Court in Anandan v. Valsan [1997(1) KLT 23] considered the scope and extent of expression 'any person' and held that under Section 18(2) of the Act, only a person aggrieved by an order passed by the Rent Control Court can prefer an appeal and any person aggrieved by order means any person against whom an order of eviction was passed by the Rent Control Court only.
has been passed against the revision petitioner. Hence, it is needless to say the revision petitioner
is not an aggrieved person. That apart, the order
R.C.R. No.256 of 2018
-: 7 :-
rejecting the impleading petition passed in Interlocutory Application No.6701 of 2015 was not challenged so far and the impugned order challenged
in appeal was passed on merits only, without touching the alleged right of the revision petitioner with respect to the petition schedule building. Therefore, the revision petitioner's title and possession over the petition schedule building was not an issue considered or decided in the final order passed by the Rent Control Court. Therefore, the earlier order passed in Interlocutory Application No.6701 of 2015, which attained a finality is binding on the Appellate Authority also. We are of the opinion that the absence of challenge against the order passed in Interlocutory Application No.6701 of 2015 is fatal to the subsequent appeal filed by the revision petitioner.
R.C.R. No.256 of 2018
-: 8 :-
seen that the revision petitioner has claimed title
and possession over the petition schedule building, stating that the documents purportedly executed as sale deeds by the revision petitioner in favour of respondents 1 and 2 are not valid sale deeds and neither title nor possession was transferred under the alleged sale deeds. The revision petitioner has already filed civil suit as O.S. No.72 of 2016 before the Sub Court, Ernakulam, seeking declaration of title and possession and that civil suit is pending.
stands as such. In the above view also, the
R.C.R. No.256 of 2018
-: 9 :-
revision petitioner is not an aggrieved person, as
contemplated under Section 18 of the Act. We do not
find any kind of illegality and impropriety in the findings, whereby the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal.
Hence, this revision petition will stand
dismissed. All pending Interlocutory Applications will stand closed.
K. HARILAL, JUDGE
Sd/- ANNIE JOHN, JUDGE
DST
//True copy//
P.A. To Judge
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a rent control revision petition filed by a person who was not a party to the original proceedings and against whom no eviction order was passed can be maintained.
Whether the Revision Petitioner, whose impleading application was dismissed without challenge, falls within the ambit of 'any person aggrieved' under Section 18 of the Act.
Whether the Appellate Authority correctly dismissed the appeal finding that the Revision Petitioner lacks standing to challenge the eviction order against others.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Anandan v. ValsanReferred¶51
Anandan v. Valsan [1997(1) KLT 23]
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Mini James
Emil J Thachil
Tanu Maria George
Antony Pios
K. Harilal
Annie John
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
