ASSAINKUTTY HAJI Vs. RAJALAKSHMIAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether the finding on the preliminary point regarding denial of title set up by the tenant, which has attained finality would operate as res judicata in raising the plea of want of jurisdiction Whether any transformation in the jural relationship between the landlord and the tenant has taken place on account of the basis of an agreement for sale in respect of the tenanted premises These are the two crucial questions which arise for consideration in this revision petition filed by the tenants, who were sought to be evicted by the respondents from the tenanted premises under S. 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for short). Before answering the above, it is useful to have a glance at the relevant facts in brief.

(2.) The tenanted premises consist of a shed and an office room attached to it, where an industrial concern by name 'Friends Auto Service', engaged in repairing, servicing and rebuilding of heavy motor vehicles, is run by the petitioner. The premises originally belonged to the first respondent and her brother Chandrasekharan Nair, who is no more. After the death of Chandrasekharan Nair his rights devolved on the second respondent as per a Will executed by the deceased. The case of the respondents is that the petition schedule premises was entrusted to the petitioners 1 and 2, late Moideen Haji (predecessor-in-interest of petitioners 3 to 15), late Imbichi Mammy (predecessor-in-interest of petitioners 16 to 26) and late Khader (predecessor-in-interest of petitioners 27 to 43) in the year 1985 by the above said Chandrasekharan Nair and the first respondent on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,000/-. A sum of Rs. 5,000/- was paid as advance. Rent is in arrears from January 1991. Demand for arrears did not evoke any positive response. It was also alleged that the wife of the second respondent, who is depending upon the respondents, bona fide needs the petition schedule building to start a business in advertisement as no other suitable building is available in her possession.

(3.) The tenants resisted the application. They contended that there is no landlord-tenant relationship between the petitioners and the respondents. Their specific case was that the original entrustment was that of vacant land and the structures therein were constructed by them. Hence, according to them, it was a lease coming under the purview of S. 106 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. In addition to that, they contended that there was an agreement to sell between the landlords and the tenants in the year 1990 and thereafter, the petitioners are not holding the property as tenants, but their possession is pursuant to the said agreement. Thus, according to them, after the agreement, there is no landlord-tenant relationship. They would further contend that the rent fell in arrears on account of the agreement. The alleged need was also disputed and was branded as a ruse for eviction.