Kerala High Court
Narayani vs Sathidevi on 11 April, 2017
Author: P. Somarajan
Bench: K.Harilal, P.Somarajan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN
TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2017/30TH JYAISHTA, 1939
RCRev..No. 179 of 2017
-----------------------
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN RCA 76/2016 OF THE RENT CONTROL
APPELLATE AUTHORITY/ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, VADAKARA
DATED 11-04-2017.
AGAINST THE ORDER IN RCP 66/2014 OF THE RENT
CONTROLLER/MUNSIFF COURT, VADAKARA DATED 22-01-2016.
REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 8:
---------------------------------------------------
1. NARAYANI, W/O. CHATHU, AGED 76 YEARS,
RESIDING AT KANNAN'S, MAYYANNUR P.O.,
VILLIAPPALLY AMSOM, VATAKARA TALUK,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 107.
2. SADANANDAN, S/O. CHATHU, AGED 55 YEARS,
RESIDING AT KANNAN'S, MAYYANNUR P.O.,
VILLIAPPALLY AMSOM, VATAKARA TALUK,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 107.
3. SAHADEVAN, S/O. CHATHU, AGED 57 YEARS,
RESIDING AT KANNAN'S, MAYYANNUR P.O.,
VILLIAPPALLY AMSOM, VATAKARA TALUK,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 107.
4. PRADEEPAN, S/O. CHATHU, AGED 51 YEARS,
RESIDING AT KANNAN'S, MAYYANNUR P.O.,
VILLIAPPALLY AMSOM, VATAKARA TALUK,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 107.
......2
-2-
5. SUNANDHA, D/O. CHATHU, AGED 48 YEARS,
RESIDING AT KUNNAMBATH HOUSE, VATAKARA P.O.,
VATAKARA TALUK-673 101.
6. SAJEEVAN, S/O. CHATHU, AGED 46 YEARS,
RESIDING AT KANNAN'S, MAYYANNUR P.O.,
VILLIAPPALLY AMSOM, VATAKARA TALUK,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 107.
7. SATHYAN, S/O. CHATHU, AGED 43 YEARS,
RESIDING AT KANNAN'S, MAYYANNUR P.O.,
VILLIAPPALLY AMSOM, VATAKARA TALUK,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 107.
8. SUGITHA, D/O. CHATHU, AGED 41 YEARS,
RESIDING AT MOYAKUDIYIL, PUTHUPPANAM P.O.,
PUTHUPPANAM AMSOM, VATAKARA TALUK,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 101.
BY ADV. SRI.BIJU ABRAHAM
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER AND 9TH RESPONDENT:
-----------------------------------------
1. SATHIDEVI, D/O. KANNAN, AGED 62 YEARS,
PANAYULLATHIL, PURAMERI AMSOM,
MUTHUVADATHOOR P.O., VATAKARA TALUK,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 503.
2. SUGATHAN, S/O. CHATHU,
RESIDING AT KANNAN'S, MAYYANNUR P.O.,
VILLIAPPALLY AMSOM, VATAKARA TALUK,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 107.
THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 20-06-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED
THE FOLLOWING:
K. HARILAL &
P. SOMARAJAN., JJ.
---------------------------------------------------------
R.C.R. No. 179 of 2017
----------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of June, 2017
ORDER
Harilal, J.
The revision petitioners are the tenants in the Rent Control Petition. They were ordered to be evicted from the petition schedule shop room under Sec.11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short 'the Act') and in an appeal, the Appellate Court also confirmed the said finding. Thus, this Rent Control Revision is filed challenging the legality and propriety of the concurrent findings under Sec.11(3) of the Act. Though, this Rent Control Revision has been filed on various grounds, the learned counsel for the revision R.C.R. No. 179 of 2017 -: 2 :- petitioners mainly focussed his arguments on the ground that the courts below have failed to consider the right of permanent tenancy claimed by the respondents in its correct perspective. According to him, the tenancy has commenced in the year 1964 and thereafter, in the year 1994, by virtue of Ext.B1, the landlord and the tenants had entered into an agreement granting permanent tenancy. Therefore, they are not liable to be evicted from the petition schedule shop room. In order to substantiate the said contention, the tenants have produced Ext.B1 agreement allegedly executed between the landlord and the tenants; but the courts below have failed to consider Ext.B1 in its correct perspective, the counsel argued.
2. It stands admitted that the tenancy has commenced in the year 1964 and they were paying the rent to the landlord up to 1994. It is the case of the tenants that in the year 1994, they entered into Ext.B1 agreement granting permanent tenancy to the R.C.R. No. 179 of 2017 -: 3 :- tenants. in lieu of the acquisition of a portion of the petition schedule shop room for widening of the road. Ext.B1 was pressed into service to claim the right of permanent tenancy. But the courts below, after examining Ext.B1, found that Ext.B1 is an unregistered document. As per Sec.107 of the Transfer of Property Act, the lease of immovable property for a period of more than one year should be made by a registered deed; but Ext.B1 was an unregistered lease deed and the same can be used for collateral purpose so as to show the nature and possession only. More importantly, the landlord has denied the signature in Ext.B1. In the above view, the courts below have found that the tenants have miserably failed to prove the claim of permanent tenancy, as required under law. Therefore, they are estopped from raising the claim of permanent tenancy, as per Sec.116 of the Indian Evidence Act. We do not find any kind of illegality or impropriety in the aforesaid finding. Therefore, we reject the R.C.R. No. 179 of 2017 -: 4 :- arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the tenants and this Rent Control Revision is liable to be dismissed at the threshold and we do so.
3. At last, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners sought for 8 months' time to surrender the petition schedule shop room. The learned counsel for the respondents opposed the said request. But, this Court is of the view that a reasonable time can be given to the revision petitioners to surrender the petition schedule shop rooms, on terms. The revision petitioners shall surrender the petition schedule shop rooms within 8 months from today, provided that they could comply the conditions given below within the specified time:
(i) The respondents in the Rent Control Petition shall file an affidavit within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, expressing an unconditional undertaking that the petition schedule shop room will be vacated on or before 28.02.2018.
R.C.R. No. 179 of 2017 -: 5 :-
(ii) The respondents/tenants shall deposit the entire arrear of rent, if any, in the Rent Control Court or Execution Court, as the case may be, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and shall continue to pay rent without default.
(iii) In the event of failure to comply any of the conditions stated above, the time granted to vacate the premises will stand automatically repealed and the petitioner/landlord will be at liberty to proceed with the execution of the eviction order.
Sd/-
(K.HARILAL, JUDGE) Sd/-
(P. SOMARAJAN, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. To Judge