A M PRABHAKARAN Vs. CHITHAPPA SULAIKABI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have gone through the illuminative concurring judgments of Abdul Gafoor and Balakrishnan Nair, JJ. as also the concurring judgments of Kurian Joseph and Padmanabhan Nair, JJ. expressing however, a different view than the one expressed by Abdul Gafoor and Balakrishnan Nair, JJ. The present may be one of the rarest of rare cases where every Honourable Member of the Bench has chosen to write, even though concurring with the other, his own judgment. May be that the Honourable Member of the Bench concurring with the other wished to express the same view point in his own way.

(2.) I have given deep and anxious the (sic) to both the views and after considering and reconsidering the whole issue, I have come to the conclusion that the view expressed by Kurian Joseph and Padmanabhan Nair, JJ. appears to be correct. With respect, thus, I would differ with the view taken by Abdul Gafoor and Balakrishnan Nair, JJ. Tenant means any person by whom or on whose account rent is payable for a building and includes the heir or heirs of a deceased tenant as would be made out from Section 2(6) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. A tenancy is heritable, but the crucial question in the present case is as to whether a privilege conferred upon a tenant for his non-eviction even in a case where the landlord may require the demised premises, for his bona fide requirement is also heritable. In my considered view, the plain language employed in Section 11(17) of the Act would manifest that the privilege for non-eviction is of a tenant who has been in continuous occupation of a building from 1st April, 1940 as a tenant. Such a tenant is not liable to be evicted for bona fide occupation of the landlord or of a member of the family dependant upon the landlord. The tenancy may be heritable, but a special privilege enjoyed by a tenant for his non-eviction is personal and such a personal privilege is not and cannot be heritable. The heir of a tenant may succeed to the right of hiss predecessor but he cannot succeed to the personal privilege enjoyed by his predecessor conferred upon by virtue of he being in possession since 1st of April, 1940. The continuous possession from 1st April 1940 alone clothes a tenant with a privilege for non-eviction and such a continuous possession can be only peculiar to a tenant actually occupying the premises and no occupation conferring such a privilege like non-eviction can be heritable. In my considered view, it is not a case which may require a debate with regard to adding to or deleting from the existing provisions in the statute. The statute confers a privilege to a tenant by the dint of hiss occupying the premises from 1 st April, 1940 and it is that tenant only who would have the privilege of non-eviction. If, perhaps, this Court was to interpret the provisions under debate or discussion, naturally, all principles of interpretation as mentioned in the concurring judgments of Kurian Joseph and Padmanabhan Nair, JJ. would apply. Surely, the right of a tenant cannot nurture into ownership and if the heir of a tenant is to inherit the privilege of non-eviction as well, it would be a virtual conferment of ownership subject to payment of rent which may be pittance, settled way back in 1940 or even before. This conclusion needs to be arrived at by pure and simple interpretation of the statute in the context of objects and reasons of the Act of 1965 without in any manner, whatsoever, adding to or deleting from the existing provision.

(3.) 'Eviction of tenants' is the caption of Section 11 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control), Act (Act 2 of 1965) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), which contains several sub-sections, provisos and explanations.