T.K Narayanan vs K.M.Balakrishnan
2024 Latest Caselaw 12873 Ker

Kerala High Court

T.K Narayanan vs K.M.Balakrishnan on 22 May, 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.
      WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MAY 2024 / 1ST JYAISHTA, 1946
                         RCREV. NO. 94 OF 2024
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 05.01.2024 IN RCA NO.17 OF 2020
OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC)-II, KALPETTA ARISING OUT OF
THE   ORDER/JUDGMENT   DATED   17.02.2014   IN   RCP   NO.28   OF   2014   OF
MUNSIFF MAGISTRATE, SULTHAN BATHERI
REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:

            T.K NARAYANAN
            AGED 71 YEARS
            S/O CHATHUKUTTY, AGED 71 YEARS,
            RESIDING AT THALIKKANDY HOUSE,
            S.BATHERY AMSOM AND DESOM, S.BATHERY TALUK,
            WAYANAD DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN - 673592

            BY ADVS.
            AMITH KRISHNAN H.
            GOWRI DEV
            P.DEVIKRISHNA
            B.G.HARINDRANATH (SR.)(K/378/1984)



RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:

            K.M.BALAKRISHNAN
            AGED 86 YEARS
            S/O KUNHIRAMAN NAIR, AGRICULTURIST, AGED 86,
            SECRETARY, BATHERY MAHA GANAPATHI KSHETRA SAMITHI,
            MAHA GANAPATHI KSETRA SAMITHI OFFICE, S.BATHERY PO,
            S.BATHERY AMSOM AND DESOM, S.BATHERY TALUK,
            WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN - 673592


      THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
22.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 RCREV. NO. 94 OF 2024
                                  2


                               ORDER

Amit Rawal, J.

1. Present Revision petition is directed against

concurrent finding of Rent Controller and Appellate Authority

whereby eviction of petitioner/tenant has been ordered and

upheld on the ground of ceases to occupy.

2. Respondent/landlord instituted a petition seeking

eviction of petitioner/tenant on the ground specified under

Section 11(4)(V), ceased to occupy. The aforementioned

petition was filed in 2014 alleging that tenant had ceased to

occupy petition scheduled building from July, 2013.

Petitioner/tenant appeared and denied all allegations, much less

raised dispute with regard to the locus standi of

respondent/landlord. Since parties were at variance, learned

Rent Controller framed the following issues:

(i) Had the tenant ceased to occupy petition schedule

shop room for 6 months without any reasonable

cause ?

(ii) Is the petitioner entitled to get an order directing RCREV. NO. 94 OF 2024

the respondent to hand over the vacant possession of

the petition schedule shop room u/s 11(4) (V) of the

Act ?

(iii) Relief and Costs ?

3. Respondent/landlord examined five witnesses and

brought on record certain documents; similarly petitioner/tenant

also,details of which are given below:

Petitioner's Witness:

PW1 - 20.02.2018 - K.M. Balakrishnan PW2 - 24.07.2019 - K. Rajan PW3 - 24.07.2019 - Radhakrishnan T. PW4 - 30.07.2019 - Surendran PW5 - 07.08.2019 - Sajith Babu

Petitioner's Exhibits:

A1 - 05.07.1972 - Certified copy of Registration Certificate.

          A2      - 21.10.1977     - Agreement.
          A3      - 31.03.2015     - Audit Report.
          A4      - 25.05.2012     - Copy of minutes.
          A5      - 23.06.2015     - Ownership Certificate.
          A6      - 19.10.2015     - Reply of Right to
                                     Information Act issued

by Senior Superintendent, K.S.E.B, RCREV. NO. 94 OF 2024

Sulthanbathery (east).

A7 - 17.01.2014 - Building Tax Receipt. A8 - 19.02.2013 - Building Tax Receipt. A9 - 07.03.2011 - Building Tax Receipt. A10 - 21.01.2009 - Building Tax Receipt. A11 - 23.01.2008 - Building Tax Receipt. A12 - 13.03.2007 - Building Tax Receipt. A13 - 22.02.2006 - Building Tax Receipt. A14 - 31.10.2002 - Building Tax Receipt. A15 - 29.11.2004 - Building Tax Receipt. A16 - 27.10.2001 - Building Tax Receipt. A17 - 25.09.2000 - Building Tax Receipt. A18 - 24.03.1998 - Building Tax Receipt. A19 - 10.03.1999 - Building Tax Receipt. A20 - 25.03.2015 - Building Tax Receipt. A21 - 10.07.2014 - True copy of Minutes Book. A22 - 10.11.2014 - True copy of Minutes Book.

Respondent's Witness:

       RW1 - 24.09.2019             - T.K.Naryan
       RW2 - 18.11.2019             - M.A.Balasubramanian


       Respondent's Exhibits:

R1 - 02.07.2007 - Copy of Certification of Registration (rejected). R2 - 21.07.2015 - Panchayath Licence. R3 - 12.02.1999 - Copy of Registration Certificate RCREV. NO. 94 OF 2024

(rejected).

R4 - 07.10.2015 - Copy of complaint submitted by T.K.Narayan to the Sub Inspector of Police, Sulthanbathery (rejected). R5 - 07.10.2015 - Petition receipt isssued by Sub Inspector of Police, Sulthanbathery. R6 - 30.09.2015 - Certified copy of the order in IA.1322/2015 in OS526/2015. R7 - - - Copy of the petition register. R8 - 06.12.2014 - Copy of the complaint. R9 - 06.12.2014 - Postal receipt. R10 - 08.12.2014 - Acknowledgement Card. R11 - 11.03.2013 - Notice issued by petitioner to the respondent.

R12 - - - Draft Rent Agreemewnt.

       R13 - 11.10.2015    - Copy of FIR.
       R14 - 30.06.2014    - Copy of Annual Return 2013-
                             2014 (rejected).
       R15 - 27.06.2015    - Copy of Annual Return 2014-
                            2015 (rejected).
       R16 - 05.08.2016    - Copy of Annual Return 2015-
                            2016 (rejected).
       R17 - 19.06.2017    - Copy of Annual Return 2016-
                             2017 (rejected).
       R18 - 30.05.2014    - Receipt of Professinal Tax.
       R19 - 22.02.2010    - Registration Certification issued
                             by Assistant Labour Office,
 RCREV. NO. 94 OF 2024



                           Sulthanbathery.

R20 - 22.09.2014 - Licence No.456 issued by Sulthanbathery Grama Panchayath. R21 - 16.01.2014 - Licence No.670 issued by Sulthanbatheri Grama Panchayath.

R22 - - - Copy of e-payment receipt of VAT for the month of April, 2013-2014 (rejeceted).

R22(a) - - Copy of e-payment receipt of VAT for the month of May, 2013- 2014 (rejected).

R22(b) - - Copy of e-payment receipt of VAT for the month of June, 2013-2014 (rejected).

R22(c) - - Copy of e-payment receipt of VAT for the month of July, 2013- 2014 (rejected).

R22(d) - - Copy of e-payment receipt of VAT for the month of August, 2013-2014 (rejected).

R22(e) - - Copy of e-payment receipt of VAT for the month of September, 2013- 2014 (rejected).

R22(f) - - Copy of e-payment receipt of VAT for the month of October, 2013-2014 (rejected).

RCREV. NO. 94 OF 2024

R22(g) - - Copy of e-payment receipt of VAT for the month of November, 2013-2014 (rejected).

R22(h) - - Copy of e-payment receipt of VAT for the month of December, 2013-2014 (rejected).

R22(i) - - Copy of e-payment receipt of VAT for the month of January, 2013-2014 (rejected).

R22(j) - - Copy of e-payment receipt of VAT for the month of February, 2013-2014 (rejected).

R22(k) - - Copy of e-payment receipt of VAT for the month of March, 2013-2014 (rejected)."

4. On analysis of evidences brought on record, learned

Rent Controller ordered eviction. Appeal preferred against the

aforementioned judgment has also been dismissed.

5. Mr.B.G.Harindranath, learned Senior Counsel assisted

by Smt.P.Devi Krishna in support of grounds of revision stated

that documents brought on record ex facie reveals that

petitioner/tenant had not ceased to occupy business and had

been running business from 10.a.m. to 5.p.m. Report of RCREV. NO. 94 OF 2024

Advocate Commissioner was based upon inspection conducted

after closure of the shop and that could not be a ground for

ordering the eviction on the ground of ceases to occupy.

Sometimes tenants are not in possession of documents and

adverse inference therefore in such circumstances cannot be

drawn. Documents placed on record reveals that petitioner had

been paying statutory bills, including electricity, in accordance

with law.

6. Respondent/landlord claimed to be the trustee but no

document have been placed on record in support of the same.

Trial court has abdicated in not framing the issue in this regard

but the plea can always be decided at any stage of the matter.

7. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant

and appraised the paper book.

8. Categoric case of respondent/landlord before Rent

Controller, in petition filed in 2014 had been that

petitioner/tenant ceased to occupy the petition schedule building

from July, 2013. In order to belie the claim, tenant was required

to place on record the document pertaining to said period,

either two months before or three months after. However, RCREV. NO. 94 OF 2024

categoric finding of both Courts below had been that no

documents regarding electricity bills and other statutory bills

were placed on record. The premises in dispute is SBP VI/29. All

the documents noticed above are of subsequent period. The

ground of eviction ceased to occupy, thus, has been sufficed

which has not been countered by any direct or cogent evidence

by the petitioner/tenant. As far as objection with regard to the

locus standi, we cannot go into merit, for, no issue was pressed

or an evidence in material has been placed on record. We do not

find any illegality and perversity.

No ground for interference is made out. Revision is

dismissed accordingly.

Sd/-

AMIT RAWAL JUDGE

Sd/-

EASWARAN S. JUDGE nak