SATHEESH KUMAR Vs. K. BALASUBRAMANIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed by the tenants, invoking S.20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short 'Rent Control Act'), aggrieved by the concurrent findings rendered by the Rent Control Court as confirmed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority.

(2.) For the sake of brevity, we refer the parties to as the landlord and the tenants. The landlord filed a consolidated Rent Control Petition for eviction on the ground of arrears of rent invoking Section 11(2)(b) of the Rent Control Act and for fixation of fair rent invoking S.5 of the Rent Control Act. It is not in dispute that the petition-schedule building originally belonged to the father of the landlord, which was taken on lease by the predecessor in interest of the tenants in the year 1963 as per Ext. A1 lease deed. It was alleged by the landlord that after the death of his father, the petition-schedule building was set apart to his share by virtue of Ext.A2 partition deed entered into between the legal heirs. It was further alleged that after the death of the predecessor in interest of the tenants, the tenancy right devolved upon the respondents/tenants and they continued as tenants attorning to the landlord. The landlord further alleged that the rent of the building is '45/- per month and the tenants have kept the rent in arrears after March, 1992. It was also alleged that the petition-schedule building is situated in an important locality at Kozhikode and the existing rate of rent paid by the tenant is quite inadequate and unreasonable considering the rate of rent in the locality and demand for accommodation and scarcity of space. The landlord sought to get the fair fixed at the rate of '5,000/- per month.

(3.) The tenants entered appearance and filed counter statement. The case of the landlord that petition schedule building originally belonged to his father was not disputed. On the other hand, it was contended that the landlord never intimated them his acquisition of ownership over the building. The tenants raised plea of kudikidappu. It was contended that the building in question is a 'hut' and they are 'kudikidappukars' coming under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 ( for short 'KLR Act') and, thus, entitled to fixity of tenure. It was also contended that they have already moved the Land Tribunal, Kozhikode and filed OA No.18/2014 for the purchase of kudikidappu right. So far as the rent arrears is concerned, it was contended that the failure to pay the rent was not wilful. According to them, the landlord is not entitled to get the fair rent of the building fixed as prayed for. They sought for dismissal of the petition.