JOSEPH Vs. THOMAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As per the second proviso to S.11(1) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control Court) Act, 1965 (for short 'the Act'), when Rent Control Court records a finding that denial of landlord's title is bona fide, it is for the landlord to sue for eviction of the tenant in a civil court on any of the grounds mentioned in the Section. In this case, a Rent Control Court recorded a finding that denial of landlord's title is bona fide. The landlord, instead of filing a civil suit, preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority and got the aforesaid finding set aside. But the District Court, in revision, restored the finding of the Rent Control Court. This Original Petition is at the instance of the landlord under Art.227 of the Constitution, in challenge of the District Judge's order.

(2.) The facts, shorn of unnecessary details, are the following: The petitioner is the son of one Joseph who is the son of one Kurien. In 1960 the aforesaid Kurien settled his properties in favour of his children. As per the settlement deed, the tenanted building (together with the land appurtenant thereto) was set apart to the share of Joseph (petitioner's father). The settlement deed further provided that Mariamma (sister of Joseph) shall have the right to take profit from the said item of property during her life time. While so, the building was leased to this tenant in 1963 for which the tenant executed a rent deed in favour of Kurien and Mariamma. After the death of Kurien, while the tenancy arrangement was subsisting, Mariamma executed a relinquishment deed in favour of her brother Joseph, transferring all her rights to Joseph. Subsequently Joseph executed a gift deed in favour of his son, the present petitioner, transferring his rights in the building and the land appurtenant thereto. When the petitioner filed the application for eviction under S.11 of the Act, the tenant contended, inter alia, that Mariamma is not entitled to transfer her rights in the property and hence the deed of relinquishment is invalid in law, and therefore the petitioner did not get valid title over the property in question. The aforesaid contention was pressed into service as amounting to denial of landlord's title.

(3.) The Rent Control Court and District Court, referring to S.6(d) of the Transfer of Property Act, took the view that Mariamma is not entitled to transfer her rights and hence the denial of title was held to be bona fide. The Appellate Authority on the other hand, took the view that neither S.6(d) nor S.6(dd) of the Transfer of Property Act could impose any hurdle on Mariamma's rights being transferred or relinquished. Further according to the Appellate Authority, the tenant who came into possession of the building pursuant to a lease created by Mariamma cannot subsequently question the title of the transferee of Mariamma. Appellate Authority further held that "at any rate such a contention cannot be accepted as a bona fide one". The aforesaid view of the Appellate Authority was found by the District Judge as unsustainable and hence the finding of the Rent Control Court was restored.