Dismissed

Elizabeth Thomas v. Padmakumari Amma

Kerala HC15 Oct 2018RSA/694/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In second appeals arising from lease and rent control proceedings, the High Court affirmed the lower courts' finding that the arrangement was a lease and not a licence. The bench dismissed the appeals, holding that the absence of signatures was immaterial given receipt of rent and the documented terms indicated a lease.

What did the court decide?

The second appeals files are dismissed; the decrees in the suits of the respondent are upheld.

Elizabeth Thomas Vs Padmakumari Amma — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

MONDAY ,THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 23RD ASWINA, 1940

¶5

RSA.No. 686 of 2017

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 31-03-2017 IN AS 40/2014 OF SUB COURT, THIRUVALLA

¶7

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23-08-2014 IN OS 478/2012 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, THIRUVALLA

¶8

APPELLANTS/ APPELLANTS/ DEFENDANTS

¶9

¶10

1 ELIZABETH THOMAS,

¶11

AGED 69, W/O.MATHAI THOMAS, KULANJIPURACKAL HOUSE,KULAKKADU, THIRUVALLA P.O., THUKALASSERY

¶12

MURI,THIRUVALLA VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶13

2 SUSAN ABRAHAM

¶14

AGED 64, W/O.MATHAI ABRAHAM, KULANJIPURACKAL HOUSE,KULAKKADU, THIRUVALLA P.O., THUKALASSERY MURI,THIRUVALLA VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶15

3 MATHAI THOMAS

¶16

AGED 72, S/O.MATHAI, MATHAI THOMAS,KULANJIPURACKAL HOUSE, KULAKKADU,THIRUVALLA P.O., THUKALASSERY MURI,THIRUVALLA VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶17

4 MATHAI ABRAHAM AGED 68, S/O.MATHAI, MATHAI THOMAS,KULANJIPURACKAL HOUSE, KULAKKADU,THIRUVALLA P.O., THUKALASSERY MURI,THIRUVALLA VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶18

BY ADV. SRI.SIVAN MADATHIL

¶19

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF:

¶20

PADMAKUMARI AMMA

¶21

AGED 50, D/O.PURUSHOTHAMAN PILLAI,PADMALAYAM VEEDU, THIRUMOOLAPURAM P.O.,ERUVELLIPRA MURI, KUTTAPUZHA VILLAGE,THIRUVALLA.

¶22

BY ADVS. SRI.PRADEESH CHACKO SRI.RAJU JOSEPH

¶23

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.10.2018, ALONG WITH RSA.694/2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

R.S.A. Nos. 686 & 694 of 2017 2

¶25

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶26

PRESENT

¶27

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶28

MONDAY ,THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 23RD ASWINA, 1940

¶29

RSA.No. 694 of 2017

¶30

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 31-03-2017 IN AS 17/2015 OF SUB COURT, THIRUVALLA

¶31

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23-08-2018 IN OS 478/2012 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, THIRUVALLA

¶32

APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS :

¶33

1 ELIZABETH THOMAS AGED 69, W/O.MATHAI THOMAS, KULANJIPURACKAL HOUSE, KULAKKADU, THIRUVALLA P.O., THUKALASSERY MURI, THIRUVALLA VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶34

2 SUSAN ABRAHAM

¶35

AGED 68, W/O.MATHAI ABRAHAM, KULANJIPURACKAL HOUSE,KULAKKADU, THIRUVALLA P.O., THUKALASSERY MURI,THIRUVALLA VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶36

3 MATHAI THOMAS AGED 78, S/O.MATHAI, MATHAI THOMAS, KULANJIPURACKAL HOUSE,KULAKKADU, THIRUVALLA P.O., THUKALASSERY MURI,THIRUVALLA VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶37

4 MATHAI ABRAHAM AGED 74, S/O.MATHAI, MATHAI THOMAS, KULANJIPURACKAL HOUSE,KULAKKADU, THIRUVALLA P.O., THUKALASSERY MURI,THIRUVALLA VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶38

BY ADV. SRI.SIVAN MADATHIL

¶39

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF:

¶40

PADMAKUMARI AMMA AGED 50, D/O.PURUSHOTHAMAN PILLAI, PADMALAYAM VEEDU, THIRUMOOLAPURAM P.O., ERUVELLIPRA MURI, KUTTAPUZHA VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA-692621.

¶41

BY ADVS. SRI.PRADEESH CHACKO SRI.RAJU JOSEPH

¶42

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.10.2018,

¶43

R.S.A. Nos. 686 & 694 of 2017 3

¶44

ALONG WITH RSA.686/2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶45

J U D G M E N T

¶46

Defendants in the suit are the appellants. The suit was one for injunction. The plaint schedule building is one owned by defendants 1 and 2. The case of the plaintiff is that she is in occupation of the plaint schedule building on the strength of a lease deed executed by her on 27.06.2011 in favour of defendants 1 and 2 and that defendants 1 and 2 are attempting to evict her by force from the tenanted premises. The relief sought in the suit by the plaintiff, in the circumstances, was a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining defendants 1 and 2 from evicting the plaintiff from the plaint schedule building otherwise than by due process of law. Defendants 1 and 2 contested the suit contending that the plaintiff was permitted to occupy the plaint schedule building only on a licence arrangement and that there is no lease arrangement between the parties. It was also contended by defendants 1 and 2 that the term of the licence arrangement entered into by them with the plaintiff is over and that therefore, the occupation of the plaint schedule building by the plaintiff is unauthorized. They have also sought a decree for eviction of the plaintiff from the plaint schedule building on that basis by way of counter claim. The trial court found that the arrangement between the parties is a lease and that defendants 1 and 2

¶47

R.S.A. Nos. 686 & 694 of 2017 4

¶48

are therefore, entitled to evict the plaintiff from the plaint schedule building only in accordance with the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 and consequently decreed the suit and dismissed the counter claim. Defendants 1 and 2 challenged the decision of the trial court in two separate appeals and the same have been dismissed by the appellate court confirming the decision of the trial court. Hence, these second appeals.

¶49

Heard the learned counsel for the appellants as also the learned counsel for the respondent.

¶50

The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the courts below have come to the conclusion that the arrangement is a lease solely based on the lease deed produced by the plaintiff. It was pointed out by the learned counsel that the said document does not contain the signatures of defendants 1 and 2. According to the learned counsel, in so far as defendants 1 and 2 are not parties to the said document, the findings aforesaid as regards the transaction is illegal and unsustainable. Alternatively, it was contended by the learned counsel that the terms of the document do not reveal that it is a lease arrangement and the terms of the document would only indicate that the transaction is one of licence. According to the learned counsel, in the circumstances, the decisions of the courts below are liable to be interfered with.

¶51

R.S.A. Nos. 686 & 694 of 2017 5

¶52

I have considered the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants. True, Exhibit B1 relied on by the plaintiff to establish that the arrangement is a lease, does not contain the signatures of defendants. But the fact that the defendants have been receiving rent in terms of the said document is not disputed. In the circumstances, according to me, defendants 1 and 2 cannot be heard to contend that the transaction was not a lease. Further, the question as to whether the terms of the document would amount to a lease or licence, is a pure question of fact. The courts below found concurrently that the transaction is one of lease. Though this court would not normally interfere with the findings rendered by the courts below on such issues, I have examined the terms of the document and the same were revealed to me also to be a lease arrangement, for, the plaintiff is not merely permitted to use the premises in terms of the document. The decisions of the courts below are, therefore, in order. The second appeals, in the circumstances, are devoid of merits and the same are, accordingly, dismissed.

¶53

Sd/-

¶54

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE

¶55

PKK

Elizabeth Thomas v. Padmakumari Amma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Elizabeth Thomas v. Padmakumari Amma

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

Oliyan Veerankutty Vs Kallivalappil Saidalavi

Biju Vs Usha

Sheeba Vs Smt. Reshmi

Manjula Vs P. Premakumar @ Mani

Prathiba Developers (P) Ltd, Vs Mr.S Pukazhenthi

Babu Vs Thomas Mathew