SARA UMMA Vs. MOIDEEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these Civil Revision Petitions are filed against the judgment in R. C. A. No. 15 of 1996. While C.R.P. No. 597 of 1997 is filed by the appellants in the R. C. Appeal, the other Civil Revision Petition is filed by the respondents 1 and 2 in the appeal. The original proceeding is R. C. P. No. 51 of 1990. The Rent Control Petition was filed by the landlord for eviction of respondents 1 to 3 in the Rent Control Petition, under S.11(2), 11(3), 11(4)(i) and 11(4)(iii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The facts stated in the Rent Control Petition are as follows:

(2.) The petition schedule property was leased out to Chemmanath Poker from Nilamboor Kovilakam in 1920. Poker had constructed a house in the property and entrusted the same for a rental of Rs. 10/- per month in favour of one Cheriya Moideen Bava @ Chellaman Rauthar on 5.6.1960. After the death of Chellaman Rauther, his legal heirs who are R1 to R3 were in occupation of the petition schedule property. The first petitioner had taken assignment of the petition schedule property inclusive of the building as per registered document dated 20.4.1961 from Chemmanath Poker. Subsequently, R1 to R3 had failed to attorn to the petitioner or to pay any rent. Due to lack of proper maintenance the house in the property was completely demolished and a registered lawyer notice was issued by the first petitioner for surrender of possession of the petition schedule property. In the reply notice, R1 to R3 had contended that Poker had executed an agreement to assign the petition schedule property for a consideration of Rs. 500/- and a sum of Rs. 400/- was paid by them as advance consideration. The first petitioner had filed O. S. No. 669 of 1968 for a decree for recovery of possession of the property. R4 to R6 were also impleaded in the suit. The suit was initially dismissed by the Munsiff's Court, Manjeri. But in appeal, the first appellate court had set aside the dismissal and decreed the suit as per judgment dated 13.8.1982. R5 to R6 had challenged the decree before this Court in S. A. No. 929 of 1982. In the Second Appeal, R5 and R6 contended that since the building is in their occupation by virtue of an entrustment for rent by the predecessor in interest of the petitioner, the proper remedy available to the petitioner is to file an application as per the provisions of the Act. The above contention was accepted by this Court and S. A. No. 929 of 1982 was disposed of. On 16.8.1990, a registered lawyer notice was issued by the first petitioner to the respondents for eviction on the grounds mentioned in the petition.

(3.) Obviously, notice was addressed to respondents 1 to 3 and copies were sent to respondents 4 to 6. In the Rent Control Petition, respondents 1 to 4 did not file any objection. Respondents 5 to 7 filed objections. They took the contention that the findings in S. A. No. 929 of 1982 are not binding on them as the suit was ultimately dismissed. According to them, the property belongs to them, the building was constructed by them and hence, the Rent Control Petitioner will not lie. Further, it was submitted that the bona fide need alleged is not true and that the petitioners are not entitled to eviction under the Act.