Allowed

Wayanad District Farmers Marketing Sahakarana Sangam LTD.NO.W/163. v. Pulpally Grama Panchayath

Kerala HC5 Feb 2019RCRev./187/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this revision petition, the Kerala High Court examined whether a Rent Control Court possessed jurisdiction to hear an eviction petition filed by a Panchayath landlord. The Court held that a Government notification exempting the Panchayath's buildings under Section 25(1) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, completely ousts the Rent Control Court's jurisdiction, allowing n

What did the court decide?

The impugned judgment confirming the eviction order is set aside; the petitioners are allowed to seek appropriate remedies under the law.

Wayanad District Farmers Marketing Sahakarana Sangam… — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANNIE JOHN

¶6

TUESDAY ,THE 05TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 16TH MAGHA, 1940

¶7

RCRev..No. 187 of 2018

¶8

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN RCA 10/2016 of THE RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY (DISTRICT JUDGE), KALPETTA, WAYANAD DATED 13-04-2018

¶9

AGAINST THE ORDERIN RCP 8/2013 of RENT CONTROLLER (MUNSIFF MAGISTRATE), SULTHAN BATHERY DATED 08-04-2016

¶10

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT :

¶11

WAYANAD DISTRICT FARMERS MARKETING SAHAKARANA SANGAM LTD.NO.W/163, PULPALLY POST AND VILLAGE, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, K.M.JOSEPH, S/O.MATHEW, AGED 65 YEARS, KAINIKUDI HOUSE.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.A.V.JAMES

¶13

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:

¶14

PULPALLY GRAMA PANCHAYATH

¶15

PULPALLY, PULPALLY VILLAGE, SULTHAN BATHERY TALUK, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, K.K.REGHUNATHAN, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O.KANNAN, PIN - 673 579.

¶16

BY ADV. SRI.MANOJ RAMASWAMY

¶17

THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

RCRev..No. 187 of 2018

ORDER

Harilal, J

The question that arises for consideration in this revision petition is, has the rent control court jurisdiction and power to entertain a rent control petition filed by the Panchayath seeking an order of eviction against the tenant, who is in occupation of the building owned and possessed by the Panchayath. The Pulpally Grama Panchayath, the respondent herein filed R.C.P.No.8/2013, against the revision petitioner herein, a co-operative society, seeking an order of eviction under Section 11(7) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 [for short, the Act]. The parties are referred to

¶23

RCRev..No. 187 of 2018

¶24

¶25

as in the rent control petition. According to the petitioner, the tenanted premises is required for

¶26

renovation and extension of the office. The

¶27

respondent contended that the need projected in the petition is not bona fide and it is a ruse for eviction only. According to the respondent, the Panchayath is in occupation of sufficient space for proper functioning and no additional space is required for expansion. However, on the aforesaid pleadings, both parties adduced evidence and after considering the evidence on record, the Rent Control Court passed an order of eviction under Section 11(7) of the Act, on a finding that the need projected by the Panchayth is bona fide and as a public institution, the Panchayath is entitled to claim eviction under Section 11(7) of the Act . In appeal, the Appellate

¶28

RCRev..No. 187 of 2018

¶29

¶30

Court also, after re-appreciating the evidence on

¶31

record, concurred with the findings of the Rent Control Court and dismissed the appeal. Thus, the legality and propriety of the findings, whereby the rent control court has passed an order of eviction, under Section 11(7) of the Act and confirmed by the appellate court, are under challenge in this revision petition.

¶32

Heard Shri.A.V.James, the learned counsel

¶33

for the revision petitioner/respondent and

¶34

Smt.Sanjana R.Nair, the learned counsel for the

¶35

respondent.

¶36

This revision has been filed on the main 3.

¶37

ground that the rent control court has no jurisdiction

¶38

to try the rent control petition, in view of the

¶39

exemption granted under Section 25(1) of the Act to

¶40

RCRev..No. 187 of 2018

¶41

¶42

the landlord/Panchayath. In order to substantiate

¶43

the said contention, the learned counsel for the respondent/tenant drew our attention to G.O.No.37647/B2/70/PW dated 01.04.1972 issued by the Government under Section 25(1) of the Act.

¶44

Per contra, the learned counsel for the

¶45

petitioner/landlord submits that even though the notification has been issued under Section 25(1) of the Act, the Panchayath has an option to institute the rent control petition, either before the rent control court, after waiving the exemption granted under the notification issued under Section 25(1) of the Act or before the ordinary civil court, under the exemption. It is not disputed that the Government of

¶46

Kerala issued a notification No.37647/B2/70/PW dated 01.04.1972 exempting the building owned by

¶47

RCRev..No. 187 of 2018

¶48

¶49

the Panchayath from all the provisions of the Act.

¶50

According to the learned counsel for the

¶51

respondent the exemption provided to the building owned by the Panchayath under Section 25(1) of the Act is not an absolute exemption, barring the jurisdiction of the rent control court, and the

¶52

Panchayath has an option to waive the benefit or privilege under the notification, by approaching the rent control court instead of the civil court. Section

¶53

25(1) of the Act reads as follows:-

¶54

25.Exemptions.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act the Government may, in public interest or for any other sufficient cause, by notification in the Gazette, exempt any building or class of buildings from all or any of the provisions of this Act.

¶55

'What is the effect and impact of the said

¶56

RCRev..No. 187 of 2018

¶57

¶58

notification. Has the Panchayath an option to waive

¶59

the exemption granted under the notification issued

¶60

under Section 25 of the Act'.

¶61

On an analysis of the above provision, we

¶62

find that this exemption would come into operation by the notification in the official Gazette. Section 25(1) of the Act, confers power to the Government

¶63

to grant exemption by notification in the official Gazette. The Government has power to exempt any building or class of building from all or any of the provisions of the Act, by publishing a notification in the official Gazette. So, if a notification exempting a building from the provisions of the Act is issued, the provisions under the Act cannot be applied to those

¶64

buildings. Consequently, the building would stand

¶65

ousted from the purview of the particular provision

¶66

RCRev..No. 187 of 2018

¶67

¶68

or Act itself, as the case may be.

¶69

At this juncture Section 1 of the Act is very

¶70

relevant and significant. It is to be borne in mind that under Section 1 of the Act the rent control court

¶71

gets jurisdiction to apply the Rent Control Act to an area mentioned in the Schedule of the Act, and by a notification in the Gazette by the Government. Similarly, the Government has power to cancel or modify such notification or withdraw the application of all or any of the provisions of the Act from any area mentioned in the schedule by a notification in the official Gazette under Section 25 of the Act. In other words, by the notification exempting the buildings owned by Panchayath from the application

¶72

of the provisions under the Act, the rent control court has lost its jurisdiction to entertain a rent

¶73

RCRev..No. 187 of 2018

¶74

¶75

control petition filed by the panchayath seeking an order of eviction in respect of the building owned by

¶76

the Panchayath. Where the rent control court has lost its jurisdiction, the Panchayath has no option to invoke the jurisdiction of the rent control court, after waiving the exemption granted by the Government under the notification. In short, Section 25 is not an optional provision granting right of waiver also to the landlord, who owned and possessed the building falling under the notification. It is an absolute exemption ousting the building from the Jurisdiction of the Rent Control Court.

¶77

In the above view, this Court finds that the rent control court, Sulthan Bathery had no jurisdiction to entertain R.C.P.No.8/2013 filed by the Panchayath. In the above analysis, the impugned

¶78

RCRev..No. 187 of 2018

¶79

¶80

judgment passed by the Appellate Authority,

¶81

confirming the order of eviction passed by the Rent

¶82

Control Court, would stand set aside. The petitioner

¶83

Panchayath is at liberty to seek appropriate remedies

¶84

under the law for the time being in force. This order will not stand in the way of such remedies. All

¶85

pending Interlocutory Applications will stand closed.

¶86

With the above observation, this rent control

revision is allowed.

Sd/-

K.HARILAL, JUDGE

Sd/-

ANNIE JOHN, JUDGE

¶92

AMV/05/02/2019

¶93

RCRev..No. 187 of 2018

¶94

Wayanad District Farmers Marketing Sahakarana Sangam LTD.NO.W/163. v. Pulpally Grama Panchayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Wayanad District Farmers Marketing Sahakarana Sangam LTD.NO.W/163. v. Pulpally Grama Panchayath

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

Nadris, Vs Saithalavi.a.M.

Muhammed Ashraf, Vs R.v.Prakashan

Frederic George Vs Ahammed Jasim

Muhammed Fazil M v Vs K v Muhammed Kunhi

Parakkandy Poochira Valappil Abdul Razak, Vs Kurukkan Abdul Azeez

Rajan Varghese Vs Rojesh Varkey