Aishath vs Saithu Muhammed
2024 Latest Caselaw 16502 Ker

Kerala High Court

Aishath vs Saithu Muhammed on 11 June, 2024

Author: Amit Rawal

Bench: Amit Rawal

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                   PRESENT
                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
                                       &
                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.
     TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 21ST JYAISHTA, 1946
                           RCREV. NO. 141 OF 2022
AGAINST   THE   JUDGMENT    IN   RCA   NO.9   OF   2022   OF   III   ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR / II ADDITIONAL MACT, THRISSUR ARISING
OUT OF THE ORDER DATED IN RCP NO.96 OF 2017 OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF
COURT,THRISSUR
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:

            AISHATH
            AGED 42 YEARS
            W/O MUHAMMED RAFFI, KARAPPAMVEETIL HOUSE, HOUSE NO TC
            17/601, MULLAKKARA DESOM, OLLUKARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR
            TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT- 680 582.

            BY ADVS.
            C.DHEERAJ RAJAN
            ANAND KALYANAKRISHNAN



RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:

            SAITHU MUHAMMED, AGED 67 YEARS
            S/O ABOOBACKER, RAYAMMARAKKARVEETIL HOUSE, VENGANELLUR
            DESOM, CHELAKKARA VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR
            DISTRICT- 680 582.

            BY ADV G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)




     THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
11.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 RCREV. NO. 141 OF 2022
                                          2

                                ORDER

Amit Rawal, J.

The present revision petition, at the instance of the petitioner-

tenant, is directed against the order of the Rent Controller whereby in

the findings on preliminary issue qua title of the landlord has been

rendered against the petitioner-tenant. Concededly, petitioner is the

tenant of the demised premises. During the subsistence of the

tenancy, had entered into an agreement to sell dated 30.5.2016 and

had paid an amount of Rs. 46 lakhs as earnest money against the total

price of Rs.65 lakhs. Out of 46 lakhs, had paid only eight lakhs and

remaining amount was to be paid in a deferred manner. Since then

the tenant stopped paying the rent, gave a cause of action to the

landlord to institute RCP No.96 of 2017 claiming eviction on the

ground of non payment of rent and bonafide needs. Owing to the

objection that the relationship of the landlord-tenant having ceased to

exist as per the agreement to sell, learned Rent Controller framed the

issue and decided as a preliminary issue and maintainability against

the petitioner, tenant.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

status of the tenant no longer subsists on the basis of the agreement

to sell and the protection under Section 53A of the Transfer of

Property Act was liable to be granted but the court below has misread

the provisions of the Act.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent RCREV. NO. 141 OF 2022

submitted that the position of law attempted to be coined by the

learned counsel for the petitioner is no longer res integra in view of

the catena of judgments rendered by various high courts including the

Supreme Court. The status of the tenant continues because the

agreement to sell does not confer title.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and

appraised the paper book and of the view, there is no force and merit.

The finding of law on the preliminary issue is perfectly legal and

justified as it is settled law that the tenant cannot assume the role of a

landlord/owner after entering into the agreement to sell for the reason

that the agreement to sell does not confer title. The title only comes

on the date when terms of the compliance of the provisions of the

agreement to sell have been confined. We have been informed that

suit for specific performance is still pending. Until and unless there is

a finality in the said litigation, the status would be of the tenant.

Revision petition is dismissed. Rent controller is directed to expedite

the trial of the proceedings not later than one year.

Sd/-

AMIT RAWAL JUDGE

Sd/-

sab                                             EASWARAN S.
                                                   JUDGE