The Kerala High Court upheld the decision of the Rent Control Court and the Rent Control Appellate Authority wherein the tenant’s denial of title over the scheduled property and the challenge against the landlord-tenant relationship were held not to be bona fide. While particularly dealing with the challenge against unregistered lease deeds, the Court cited the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 to reiterate that such registration was not required unless year to year or a term exceeding a year.
Brief Facts:
The matter commenced when a landlord initiated a Petition before the Rent Control Court seeking to evict the tenant from the scheduled shop on the grounds of arrears of rent and bona fide need as per Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (‘1965 Act’). The same was objected to by the petitioner-tenant denying the title of the landlord over the scheduled shop. The Rent Control Court conducted an enquiry and vide order dated 24.08.2023 held that the tenant’s denial of title and challenge against the landlord-tenant relationship were not bona fide. The said decision was confirmed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority. Hence, the petitioner-tenant approached the Court through an instant revision petition.
Observations of the Court:
The Court noted that based on the lease deed so executed, the rent arrangement between the parties was renewed on 5.01.2022 for 11 months, and such execution was not disputed by the tenant. However, it was contended on behalf of the tenant that the deed was not executed to create a lease.
The Court further took note of the ‘diametrically opposite version’ of the tenant in a suit instituted before the Munsiff Court seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction to restrain the landlord from disturbing her possession of the scheduled property, which was also the subject matter in the rent control proceedings.
The Court noted that the Rent Control Court as well as the Appellate Authority had highlighted the admission by the tenant of the execution of the rent deed as well as her capacity as the tenant of the scheduled building.
Therefore, the Court expressed that there was no illegality or impropriety in the observations of the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority.
Commenting upon the conduct of the petitioner-tenant, the Court found it apparent that “what she has been doing is blowing hot and cold to somehow or other cling on to the petition schedule building and to prevent the respondent-landlord from getting possession of the said building through the process of law.”
The Court referred to Retheesh Chandran A.R. v. Sarojini Amma (2011) wherein the Court had observed that ‘no person should be allowed to approbate and reprobate in legal proceedings to suit their convenience and to defeat the opposite party, by resorting to hook or crook.’
The Court hinted that no evidence was adduced by the tenant before the Rent Control Court to substantiate her contention that the lease deed was not intended to be acted upon, or for denial of the landlord-tenant relationship or any proof regarding payment of a sum for executing the sale deed.
Addressing the argument against the validity of the lease deed for want of registration, the Court pointed at Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 to clarify that compulsory registration of lease deed is applicable for year-to-year or exceeding the said term. The Court relied upon Satish Kumar Vs. Zarif Ahmed & Ors, 1997 Latest Caselaw 192 SC to support its stance.
The decision of the Court:
The Court refused to interfere with the impugned order and judgment of the Rent Control Court and Appellate Authority finding no illegality or impropriety in the same. Therefore, the Court dismissed the instant petition.
Case Title: Sheela v. Abdul Gafoor
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil K. Narendran and Hon’ble Mr. Justice G. Girish
Case No.: RCREV No. 1 of 2024
Advocate for the Petitioner: Advocate K.P. Sujesh Kumar, Advocate Keerthi K. Narayanan
Advocate for the Respondents: Advocate Navaneeth N. Nath
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :