Kerala High Court
Sunitha vs Ktdc Hotels And Resorts Ltd on 4 February, 2020
Author: Sathish Ninan
Bench: Sathish Ninan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 15TH MAGHA, 1941
RSA.No.1160 OF 2019
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 20.12.2018 IN AS NO.112/2012
OF THE ADDL. DISTRICT COURT-V, ERNAKULAM IN THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE DATED 13.01.2012 IN OS NO.1279/2009 OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF'S
COURT, ERNAKULAM
-----
APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT:
SUNITHA, S/O MOHAMMED KUNJU,
AGED 50 YEARS,
THAIPARAMBIL HOUSE, VELLAKINER, ALLEPPEY, AND
OCCUPIER OF SHOP NO.19, KTDC SHOPPING COMPLEX,
MARINE DRIVE, ERNAKULAM 682 011.
BY ADVS.
SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN
SRI.T.R.TARIN
RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF:
KTDC HOTELS AND RESORTS LTD.
(GOVERNMENT OF KERALA UNDERTAKING)
CORPORATE OFFICE, YATHIRI NIVAS, THYCAUD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 014, KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
THE PRINCIPAL OFFICER, AND REGIONAL MANGER MR. JOJITH
K. ANTONY, S/O. ANTONY, AGED 43, REGIONAL OFFICE,
(CENTRAL), COCHIN 682 011.
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
04.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
SATHISH NINAN, J.
==================
RSA No.1160 of 2019
==================
Dated this the 4th day of February, 2020
JUDGMENT
The suit for eviction with damages for use and occupation was dismissed by the trial court. The decree was reversed in appeal, against which the defendant is in second appeal.
2. Heard learned counsel Sri.T.G.Rajendran, on admission.
3. The landlord-tenant relationship is not in dispute. That the plaintiff is exempted from the applicability of the Kerala (Buildings) Lease and Rent Control Act in terms of the Notification under Section 25 thereof, is beyond challenge. That there was default in payment of rent and that the lease was validly terminated, was found even by the trial court and the finding is based on materials and is beyond challenge. However, the suit was dismissed by the trial court finding that, the person who verified and signed the plaint is not competent to represent the plaintiff.
RSA No.1160 of 2019
:- 2 :-
4. The plaintiff's undertaking is stated to be represented by its Manager, Regional Office, Central Cochin describing himself to be its Principal Officer. Order XXIX Rule 1 CPC authorises suits on behalf of Corporation to be signed by the Secretary, Director or any Principal Officer of the Corporation who is able to depose to the facts of the case. In United Bank of India v. Naresh Kumar and Ors. [AIR 1997 SC 3], the Apex Court held that in suits instituted on behalf of public corporations, public interest should not be defeated on mere technicalities, that procedural defect should not defeat the said cause. It was further held that suits by such institutions should not be dismissed on the ground that the plaint was not signed and verified by the competent person. It was further observed that pleadings signed by a person who is not a principal officer can even be ratified by the Corporation subsequently, which could even be expressed or implied. In Comprehensive Digital M/s and Others v. State Bank of Travancore [2012 KHC 152], it was held that in RSA No.1160 of 2019 :- 3 :-
the absence of any regulation or notification with regard to the officer authorised to sign, the pleading signed by one of the officers of the corporation, even assuming that he has no authority, can be ratified by the corporation subsequently and also that such ratification could be expressed or implied. This Court in RSA Nos.1216/16 and 1071/12 has upheld the authority of the person who has signed the present plaint to institute the suit on behalf of the Corporation. That apart, Ext.A1 minutes containing the resolution authorising the present signatory to institute the suit, was produced in the course of trial. In these circumstances, the trial court erred in dismissing the suit holding that the signatory did not have authority to sign the plaint and institute the suit. The lower appellate court has rightly interfered with the finding of the trial court.
5. The arrangement of lease has been terminated by issuing notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, the copy of which and the postal RSA No.1160 of 2019 :- 4 :-
acknowledgment having been produced and marked. There is valid termination of the tenancy.
6. As rightly held by the courts below, the plaintiff is entitled for damages for use and occupation till the date of surrender. The rate was fixed by the courts below referring to the rate of rent for the adjoining rooms in the same complex.
No question of law much less any substantial question of law arises for consideration in this second appeal. Appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
SATHISH NINAN JUDGE kns/-
//True Copy// P.S. to Judge