SUBRAYA HEGDE B M Vs. NALINI SHENOY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent filed R.C.P. No. 44 of 1989 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Kasaragod against the petitioners under Sections 11(4)(ii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The Rent Control Court dismissed the R.C.P. by the order dated 23.10.2003. The landlord filed R.C.A. No. 4 of 2004 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority. The appeal was allowed as per the judgment dated 10.1.2011. The tenants filed R.C.R. No. 126 of 2011 before the High Court. In the Rent Control Revision, the tenants raised a contention that the landlord had lands in excess of the ceiling limits under the Kerala Land Reforms Act and that she had surrendered the land in question to the Government. It was contended that the landlord has thus ceased to have any right, title or interest in the land and the building. The revisional court considered the said contention in R.C.R. No. 126 of 2011 and it was held thus:

(2.) In E.P. No. 113 of 2012, the tenants raised a contention that the property in question along with the building was included in the ceiling case of the landlord and the Taluk Land Board took possession of the land in question on 15.1.2004. The tenants contended that the landlord surrendered the land to the Government after the order of eviction in R.C.P. No. 44 of 1989. Due to the subsequent event, the landlord has lost her title to the petition schedule building and therefore, she is not entitled to execute the order of eviction.

(3.) The executing court considered the objection raised by the tenants and rejected the same as per the order dated 8th August, 2012, which is under challenge in the O.P.(R.C). The court below held that the final order passed by the Taluk Land Board was challenged by the landlord in C.R.P. No. 516 of 2004 and the case was remanded to the Taluk Land Board for fresh disposal. Thereafter, the Taluk Land Board has not finally disposed of the ceiling case. The court below also held that in R.C.R. No. 126 of 2011, the High Court considered the same contention raised by the tenants and that contention was rejected. The contention raised by the tenants that the landlord lost her title was also found against by the executing court.