JAYAKUMARI Vs. SUJATHA SURENDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Dispute in these cases centres around a residential building and its appurtenant land admittedly belonging to the appellants, who are the defendants in O.S.No.406 of 2007 before the Court of Additional Sub Judge, Kottayam. 1St appellant is concededly the owner of the building. She filed R.C.(OP) No.2 of 2009 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Ettumanoor seeking eviction of the respondent, who is the plaintiff in O.S.No.406 of 2007, raising a claim of bonafide need referable to Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (in short, "the BRC Act"). Eviction petition was allowed by the Rent Control Court in favour of the 1st appellant. That was taken up in appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kottayam as R.C.A.No.19 of 2010 by the respondent. Order passed by the Rent Control Court in the eviction petition was affirmed in the appeal. That is challenged by the respondent/plaintiff in the above suit in the Rent Control Revision.

(2.) According to the averments in the plaint filed by the respondent, she got possession of the plaint schedule property as per a lease deed dated 01.11.2006 (Ext.A1) from the appellants. She further contended that after commencement of the lease, Ext.A2 agreement for sale was executed between the parties fixing a total consideration of '5,50,000/- for the plaint schedule land and building. According to the respondent, on the date of agreement (17.11.2006) a sum of '1,50,000/- was paid to the 1st appellant as value for 2.5 cents of land and a building thereon. A further sum of '50,000/- was paid to the 2 nd appellant for his eight cents of property adjacent to the 1st appellant's property. In the plaint, it is further averred that balance sale consideration payable to the 1st appellant was '2,50,000/- and to the 2nd appellant it was '1,00,000/-. Since the appellants failed to execute a sale deed as agreed, the respondent approached the trial court with the suit for specific performance.

(3.) In the written statement, the appellants took up a plea that Ext.A2 agreement relied on by the respondent is a rank forgery. Appellants contended that the respondent was earlier residing in a small house constructed in PWD puramboke. She was evicted therefrom by the authorities. When the respondent was in search of a residence, the appellants inducted her into the building belonging to the 1st appellant as a tenant fixing a monthly rent for 11 months. During her stay in the building, she expressed a desire to purchase that property. But she had no money at that time. She intended to avail a loan from a local cooperative bank and for that purpose, obtained photocopies of the documents as well as basic tax receipts of the property from the appellants. Respondent secured certain certificates from the local village office and she paid the building tax thereafter. The appellants would contend that an agreement was later cooked up by the respondent which is sought to be enforced.