VELAYUDHAN NAIR Vs. YOUNG MENS CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION KOLLAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Tenants in R.C.(OP) No. 29 of 2010, R.C.(OP) No. 34 of 2010, R.C.(OP) No. 31 of 2010, R.C.(OP) No. 30 of 2010 and R.C.(OP) No. 33 of 2010 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Kollam, are the revision petitioners herein. Though independent rent control petitions have been filed by the landlord to evict the tenants in possession of different rooms in the same building, it is for a common cause of starting an internet cafe, shifting their mess to establish health club and gymnasium, public library cum reading room, reception cum lounge etc., and the claim was made under Section 11(7) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The common allegation in all these cases was that the landlord is a religious charitable institution registered under the Travancore Cochin Literary Scientific and Charitable Societies Act, 1955 and affiliated to National Council of YMCA's. The society formed principally for noble objects as its objects to open libraries and reading rooms and provide for conducting indoor and outdoor recreation games, sports and entertainments. They are competent to acquire and hold and transfer movable and immovable properties to start restaurants and community centres, construct and maintain buildings. The society was formed in the year 1924 and has got considerable growth with 350 members now. There is no open space for construction of any new building within the premises. The society constructed a golden jubilee building by the side of YMCA road and agreed to let out its portion on rent. The tenant in R.C.P. No. 29/2010 was granted a room as per agreement dated 01.03.2009 for a period of 11 months with effect from 15.03.2009 with liability to pay rent of Rs. 2,480/- with an increase of 5% every 12 months. Though it was termed as a license agreement, it was intended as a lease agreement and the relationship between them is that of landlord and tenant. The Board of Association has decided in its meeting held on 19.01.2010 resolved to have all the shops functioning in the golden jubilee building for utilizing the area for its purpose like reception cum lounge, travel desk, shifting of YMCA mess and for starting a multi gymnasium cum health club and a library cum reading room etc. There are altogether five shop rooms, including one in the occupation of the tenant in this case.

(2.) In RC(OP) No. 34/2010, the building was let out as per agreement dated 01.08.2009 for a rent of 6,165/- with an increase of 5% every 11 months. The present rent is Rs. 6,794/- per month. In R.C.(OP) No. 31/2010, the building was entrusted having an extent of 1245 squire feet for conducting a book stall as per agreement dated 17.09.2007 for a period of three years with effect from 20.04.2007 with an increase of 5% on every 12 months. In R.C.(OP) No. 30/2010, it was let out to the tenant for conducting a showroom of handicraft items as per agreement dated 20.09.2005 for a period of five years with effect from 01.06.2005, (though it was wrongly mentioned in the judgment as book stall as per agreement dated 17.09.2007 for the period of three years with effect from 20.04.2007). In R.C.(OP) No. 33/2010, the building was let out for the purpose of book stall as per agreement dated 17.09.2007 with effect from 20.04.2007 the rent was Rs. 4,783/- with an increase of 5% and the present rent is Rs. 5,811/-. Though notices have been issued to the tenants to vacate the premises and surrender possession, they did not surrender possession. So they have no option except to file these petitions for eviction under Section 11(3) and 11(7) of the Act is the allegation in the petitions.

(3.) In all these cases Except in RC(OP) Nos. 29/2010 and 31/2010, the respondents have taken up the contention that the landlord has no right to file an application for eviction under this Act as the relationship between them is not that of landlord and tenant but only that of licensor and licensee. As per the agreement, it was termed as license agreement and the relationship as licensor and licensee and the monthly payment to be paid is mentioned as licence fee. So the petition is not maintainable. They also contended that the Government has taken a decision to evict them and misrepresenting that they are the owner of the building and the land they have inducted these persons and since the Government has decided to evict them from the premises by cancelling the lease, they are not entitled to maintain the application for eviction. They denied the allegation that they require the premises for the purposes mentioned above. This is only a ruse to evict them. They also contended that the attempt of the petitioner is to evict the present occupants and to let out the same at higher rent to other persons and there is no bona fides in filing the application and they prayed for dismissal of the application. Except not denying the relationship, the other contentions raised by them were adopted by the respondent in R.C.(O.P) Nos. 29/2010 and 31/2010 as well. In these cases they have admitted that they are tenants of the building under the petitioners in the court below.