JAYAN PISHARODY Vs. T.S. RAJAGOPALAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In view of the divergent findings of the two learned Judges of a Division Bench in these two revision petitions brought under Sec. 20 of the Kerala Building (LeaseRent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short), the matter was referred to me for opinion and decision.

(2.) The revision petitioners in these two revisions are the tenants, and the common respondent in these revision petitions is the landlord. The revision petitioners are the legal heirs of the original tenant R.V.Pisharadi, and the landlord claims right under the original owner (landlady) Subhalekshmi Ammal as her adopted son. The landlord filed R.C.P.No.38/2012 before the Rent Control Court, Thiruvananthapuram (the Additional Munsiff Court for the trial of cases under the Act) claiming eviction under Sections 11(2) (b) and 11(3) of the Act. His case is that, the petition schedule building was let out to the original tenant R.V.Pisharadi by the original owner Subhalekshmi Ammal years back on a monthly rent of Rs. 3,000.00, and the petitioner used to collect rent from the said R.V.Pisharadi, and after his death from the legal heirs, for and on behalf of his mother Subhalekshmi Ammal, and even after the death of Subhalekshmi Ammal in Feb., 2004, he continued to collect rent from the tenants. His petition alleges that the tenants have kept the rent in arrear since Jan., 2006, and in spite of statutory notice, the tenants did not care to make payment of the rent, or to vacate the building. The further case of the petitioner is that the house building, wherein, he now resides is more than a century old, that it is in a dilapidated condition, that it is unsafe to continue therein any more, and that the petitioner wants to shift to the petition schedule building. Thus, he made a claim for eviction in the trial court under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act.

(3.) The tenants entered appearance in the trial court, and resisted the claim for eviction on the contention that there has not been any landlordtenant relationship either between their predecessor R.V.Pisharadi and deceased Subhalekshmi Ammal, or between them and the present petitioner, who claims eviction. Their case is that their predecessor R.V.Pisharadi was in fact permitted to occupy the petition schedule building by the owner Subbalekshmi Ammal on a consideration of the friendship and relationship between them, and accordingly, their predecessor R.V.Pisharadi made some repairs and modifications of his own, and started residing there with his family. After his death, they have also been continuing there without any objection or obstruction from anybody. Thus, they contended that as there is no landlord-tenant relationship, or that the building was never entrusted on rent, they are not liable to pay rent, and so, they are not liable for eviction under Sec. 11(2)(b) of the Act. As regards the claim of the petitioner under Sec. 11 (3) of the Act, their contention is that, the bona fide need raised by the petitioner is only a ruse for eviction, that the house building now being occupied by him is safe and sufficient, and that he has no necessity at all to shift to any other building. If at all he wants to shift his residence, he has another building in his possession. Even while resisting the claim for eviction on factual aspects, the tenants raised an important contention that the petitioner has no right to claim eviction as the landlord because, he has no title over the petition schedule building, he has no right to claim under the original owner Subhalekshmi Ammal, and that he has nothing to do with the petition schedule building either as the owner of the building, or as landlord. Thus, the tenants disputed the title of the landlord to claim eviction.