Kerala High Court
Meenakshy Aged 55 Years vs R. Ananthambal on 13 February, 2014
Author: Babu Mathew P. Joseph
Bench: Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Babu Mathew P.Joseph
CR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH
WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2014/9TH ASWINA, 1936
RCRev..No. 150 of 2014 ()
--------------------------
RCA 71/2011 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY (ADDL.DISTRICT
JUDGE - I), PALAKKAD DATED 13-02-2014
RCP 20/2010 of RENT CONTROL COURT (MUNSIFF), CHITTUR
DATED 21-10-2011
---------------
REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT :-
------------------------------------------------
MEENAKSHY AGED 55 YEARS
W/O.SUNDARARAJAN, RESIDING AT NEW STREET, AYALUR
CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON
SRI.P.S.APPU
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS :-
-------------------------------------------
1. R. ANANTHAMBAL, W/O.A.S.NARAYANAN, RESIDING AT A7/13
NEW PALM BEACH SOCIETY, SECTOR 4, NERUL WEST
NAVI MUMBAI - 400 019.
2. A.N.RAMASWAMY, S/O.A.S.NARAYANAN, RESIDING AT A7/13
NEW PALM BEACH SOCIETY, SECTOR 4, NERUL WEST
NAVI MUMBAI - 400 019.
3. RADHA SANKARAN, W/O.LATE A.N.SANKARAN.
4. A.S.NARAYANAN @ PRAKASH, S/O.LATE A.N.SANKARAN.
5. A.S.VAIDYANATHAN @ KANNAN, S/O.LATE A.N.SANKARAN.
RESPONDENTS 3 TO 5 ARE RESIDING AT NO.5
SUNDARSRINGAR, 292, V.N.PURA V MARGE
CHUNA BATTI, MUMBAI-400 022.
R1 - R5 BY ADV. SRI.R.HARISHANKAR
THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 01-10-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
jvt
"CR"
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN
&
BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JJ.
-----------------------------------------------------
R.C.R.No.150 of 2014
-----------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 1st day of October 2014
O R D E R
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.
1.This is a revision under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, "1965 Rent Act", for short.
2.Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.
3.The revision petitioner is the tenant of a residential building. Three persons joined to file the petition for eviction. First among them was a 90 years' old widow of a Government servant. The second and third were her sons, RCR 150/14 -: 2 :- the latter among whom was a retired Central Government servant, then aged 65 years. The need urged is that the mother, the second son and his wife wanted to return to their home town and reside in their own building. The elder son, who was the 2nd petitioner in the rent control petition, died pending that petition. The tenant challenged the need set up as not one which is bona fide and pleaded that she and her husband reside in the building and they have no other accommodation. She also attempted to say that the landlord had sold out about 1= cents of land and that such sale militates the plea of bona fide need. The Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority accepted the testimony of the 3rd petitioner in the rent control petition, who, along with his mother and wife wants to stay in the building, eviction of which is sought for.
4.The courts below have concurrently held that the RCR 150/14 -: 3 :- building is required by the landlords as noted above. Having considered the submissions in that regard which are essentially in the realm of appreciation of evidence, we see that the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority have duly considered the pleadings and evidence and have decided the case in accordance with law, justice, equity and good conscience, which are specifically prescribed in Rule 11(8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Rules, 1979, for guidance. There is no ground of illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the impugned decisions.
5.Be that as it may, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant argued that the building is situated in an area to which the 1965 Rent Act does not apply. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner mentions that the Rent Control Court from whose decision this revision arises has, in a different RCR 150/14 -: 4 :- litigation, found that the area 'Ayiloor' is not an area notified under the 1965 Rent Act so as to make that Act applicable to the said area. A question as to what are the boundaries and limits of a particular geographical territory is essentially a question of fact.
6.When the 1965 Rent Act was brought into force, the Kerala Panchayats Act, 1960, hereinafter referred to as the "1960 Panchayats Act", was in force. Nenmara Panchayat had Nenmara, Ayiloor and Nelliyampathy Villages. Going by its definition in Section 2(21) of the 1960 Panchayats Act, 'Panchayat area' means any local area declared as such by the Government or such other authority as may be authorised by the Government for the purposes of that Act. The provision in the 1960 Panchayats Act relating to repeal shows that the fact situation available as on the date of that Act would be modified only if there is any subsequent action by the RCR 150/14 -: 5 :- Government in that regard. Therefore, Nenmara, Ayiloor and Nelliyampathy Villages stood in Nenmara Panchayat under the 1960 Panchayats Act and there is no material to show that the said fact situation has thereafter been varied. Nenmara Panchayat is included in the Schedule of the 1965 Rent Act. Therefore, the provisions of the 1965 Rent Act were applicable to Nenmara Panchayat meaning thereby that area identified as Nenmara Panchayat, including Nenmara, Ayiloor and Nelliyampathy Villages. Once the provisions of the 1965 Rent Act thus applied to that geographical limit which takes in Nenmara, Ayiloor and Nelliyampathy Villages, such application of the 1965 Rent Act does not get watered down even if there is any delimitation exercise carried out by the competent statutory authority in terms of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 which came into force as a consequence of the Seventy-third Constitutional Amendment bringing RCR 150/14 -: 6 :- in the three-tier panchayat raj system. Once an Act is extended to an area, it operates applying to that geographical limit. The application of the law so extended to a particular geographical limit does not loose its efficacy, co-terminus with any modification of the notification regarding that particular territory under the Panchayats Act, Panchayat Raj Act or any other municipal law which may provide for a delimitation exercise for the purposes of that Act. Therefore, 1965 Rent Act having been applied to Nenmara Panchayat, including Nenmara, Ayiloor and Nelliyampathy Villages, any further delimitation exercise under the Panchayat laws does not modify the effect of the application of the 1965 Rent Act to that area unless such modification is carried out under the provisions of the 1965 Rent Act as well.
7.For the aforesaid reasons, this revision fails. RCR 150/14 -: 7 :- In the result, this revision is dismissed. The tenant is given three months' time to give vacant possession to the landlord. Let this be treated as the last opportunity having regard to the facts of the case.
Sd/-
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN JUDGE Sd/-
BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH JUDGE Jvt