SREEDHARAN NAIR Vs. KANNAN A G

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Order of the Court was pronounced by Pius C.Kuriakose, J.-Tenant is in revision challenging the concurrent orders of eviction passed against him by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority. Eviction is granted against him on the ground of bona fide need for own occupation under Section 11(3). THE prominent contention that was raised by the revision petitioner was his claim of permanent tenancy. THE claim was on the basis of Ext.B-1 document. It became evident that Ext.B-1 document was executed between the predecessor in interest of the revision petitioners and the predecessor in interest of the respondent. THE marking of Ext.B-1 was strongly objected during trial by the landlord. THE Rent Control Court however interpreted Ext.B-1 to a document conferring immunity from eviction only for Damodaran Nair, predecessor in interest of the revision petitioners/ tenants who was inducted into the building by virtue of Ext.B-1. Thus according to the Rent Control Court Ext.B-1 does not create a permanent tenancy since any permanent tenancy has to be tenancy in perpetuity. THE above view was endorsed by the Appellate Authority also. THE Rent Control Court adjudicated the merits of claim for eviction under Section 11 (3). THE evidence on record before the Rent Control Court consisted ofExts. A-1 to A-14,B-1 to B-8 series and oral evidence of RW. 1 and.W. 1. On appreciating the evidence the Rent Control Court came to the conclusion that the need projected was bona fide and accordingly ordered eviction under Section 11 (3). THE Appellate Authority reappraised the evidence and concurred with the conclusion of the Rent Control Court and confirmed the order of eviction.

(2.) IN this revision filed under Section 20, various grounds are raised assailing the finding of the statutory authorities regarding the bona fides of the need and the correctness of the order of eviction passed under Section 11 (3). The ground which is seriously raised is that the authorities below went wrong in their interpretation of Ext.B-1 as a document not creating a permanent tenancy. We have heard the submissions of Sri T. Sethumadhavan, learned counsel for revision petitioners and those of Sri Sudhi Vasudevan. Even though Mr.Sethumadhavan addressed arguments on the basis of grounds raised, challenging the merits of eviction order passed, he gave more thrust in his submissions to the ground assailing the finding regarding perpetual nature of the tenancy. According to him, the interpretation by the statutory authorities that Ext. B-1 is intended to benefit only Damodaran Nair and therefore Ext. B-1 cannot be treated as a document creating a permanent tenancy is wrong. Learned counsel highlighted the following passages in Ext. B-1 before us. According to him, it is transparently clear from those words that Ext.B-1 was intended to confer the benefit not only on Damodaran Nair but also on his posterity.

(3.) BUT the above view taken by us notwithstanding, we are in a position to sustain the finding of the statutory authorities that the revision petitioners are not entitled to set up a plea of permanent tenancy or permanent immunity from eviction. Ext.B-1, as we have already found, creates a perpetual lease not only in favour of Damodaran Nair but in favour of all his successors. Section 17(1 )(d) read with Section 49 of the Registration Act stands in the way of any claim of perpetual lease on the basis of Ext.B-1 which is an unregistered document, being accepted. According to us Ext.B-1 cannot be relied on as evidence of the perpetual lease which is claimed. At best Ext.B-1 can be relied on as evidence of a collateral transaction as envisaged by proviso to Section 49. BUT here the main transaction sought to be proved is of a lease in perpetuity. Such a transaction cannot be created by Ext.B-1. In the absence of a registered document for proving the transaction of perpetual lease or lease for a period of exceeding one year, Ext.B-1 cannot come to the aid of the revision petitioner. The marking of Ext.B-1 has to be confined to the extent of proving the collateral transactions other than the longevity of lease in question.