Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. The defendants filed a suit for recovery of possession as O.S.No.696/2008 before the trial court and both the suits were tried together. The main contention of the plaintiffs is that the plaintiffs are entitled to get the benevolent provisions under the Kerala Buildings (Lease R.S.A.Nos.581 & 582 of 2021 ..9..

and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short 'Act 2 of 1965').

4. The defendants contended that they have purchased the plaint schedule property in auction conducted by the KFC. According to them, as per Ext.B2 sale deed No.1192/2007 dated 23.1.2007 executed by the KFC in favour of the defendants, they have assumed title over the plaint schedule property. The defendants bid the property in auction conducted by the KFC and the sale was confirmed in favour of them. Thereafter the sale deed was executed in favour of the defendants. It was contended that the defendants are not tenants coming under the purview of the Act 2 of 1965.

have filed the present appeals before this Court.

7. Heard Sri.M.Krishna Kumar, the learned counsel for the appellants and Sri.T.Sethumadhavan, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents 8 and 10.

8. Sri.M.Krishna Kumar, the learned counsel for the appellants submits that the plaintiffs are lessees and they have a right to be in possession of the suit property during the period of the lease and this right cannot be taken away except in accordance with the procedure established by law. It is submitted that there is nothing under the provisions of the KFC Act to show that the right of a lessee to remain in possession of the mortgaged property during the period of the lease stands extinguished when the mortgagee initiates auction under the provisions of the KFC Act. It is submitted that in the absence of any express language under the provisions of the KFC Act affecting a lease of a mortgaged property R.S.A.Nos.581 & 582 of 2021 ..12..

10. Assailing the auction proceedings in favour of the defendants by the KFC, one of the partners, namely, Kiran Babu admittedly filed a writ petition before this Court as W.P.(C)No.10189/2006. The writ petition was dismissed as per Ext.B32 on 14.8.2006. Challenging R.S.A.Nos.581 & 582 of 2021 ..15..

Ext.B32, Kiran Babu filed W.A.No.1546/2006 before this Court. The writ appeal was dismissed as per Ext.B33 on 24.8.2006. Kiran Babu filed W.P.(C)No.34808/2005 before this Court seeking time to settle the dispute with the KFC. By Ext.B31 judgment dated 23.12.2005, this Court granted time till 28.2.2006 to settle the matter with the KFC. However, no payment was made within the time stipulated by this Court. Consequently, the KFC proceeded with the auction. The 2nd plaintiff challenged the auction proceeding in W.P.(C)No.2700/2007 before this Court. It was also dismissed as per Ext.B34. As directed by this Court, the Sub Registrar, West Hill registered the sale deed in favour of the auction purchasers. Accordingly, Ext.B2 sale deed was registered.

12. Challenging the dismissal of O.S.No.405/2010 of the Additional Sub Court-III, Kozhikode, seeking to set aside Ext.B2 sale held under the Kerala State Financial Corporation Act, (for short 'SFC Act') Kiran Babu filed R.S.A.Nos.581 & 582 of 2021 ..17..

R.F.A.(Indigent) No.709/2016 before this Court. The appeal was dismissed by the judgment and decree dated 17.7.2019. It is clear from the judgment that during the year 1995-96, for the purpose of constructing a shopping complex in the property, the firm availed financial assistance from the KFC. Subsequently, additional facilities were availed on 18.1.1996 and 16.8.1996 respectively. On failure to repay the loan amount, possession of the property was taken over by the KFC under Section 29 of the SFC Act on 15.5.2001. Thereafter, one of the partners, namely, Krishnan retired from the firm on 23.4.2003. By virtue of an assignment deed, his rights over the property was conveyed in favour of the plaintiff. Since the debt was not paid off, KFC initiated proceedings for sale of the property and Ext.B2 sale deed was executed in favour of the defendants. There were a couple of writ proceedings which constituted the delay in execution of Ext.B2 sale R.S.A.Nos.581 & 582 of 2021 ..18..