Kerala High Court
K.Pundalika Shenoy vs Padmavathi on 27 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.
MONDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MAY 2024 / 6TH JYAISHTA, 1946
RCREV. NO. 41 OF 2020
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 02.02.2017 IN RCA NO.14 OF 2015
OF RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, KASARAGOD ARISING OUT OF THE
ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 26.10.2015 IN RCP NO.32 OF 2014 OF THE RENT
CONTROLLER (PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF), KASARAGOD
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
K.PUNDALIKA SHENOY,
S/O LATE K.GOKULDAS SHENOY, AGED 64 YEARS,
HINDU, LANDHOLDER, SRINIVASA SANTHINAGAR,
KARANDAKKAD, KASARAGOD KASABA VILLAGE,
KASARAGOD TALUK,
KASARGODE DISTRICT, PIN-671 121.
BY ADVS.
R.S.KALKURA
SRI.M.S.KALESH
SRI.HARISH GOPINATH
SMT.R.BINDU
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COUNTER PETITIONERS:
1 PADMAVATHI,
S/O SHANKARA ACHARY, AGED 75 YEARS
RESIDING AT BEHIND VIKAS BHAVAN,
MADHUR ROAD, KAKSKARAGODE VILLAGE,
KASARAGODE TALUK,
KASARGODE DISTRICT, PIN-671 121.
2 SHANTHI,
D/O LALITHA, AGED 60 YEARS
RESIDING AT BEHIND VIKAS BHAVAN, MADHUR ROAD,
KAKSKARAGODE VILLAGE, KASARAGODE TALUK,
KASARGODE DISTRICT, PIN-671 121.
3 SEETHA,
D/O LALITHA, AGED 50 YEARS
RESIDING AT BEHIND VIKAS BHAVAN, MADHUR ROAD,
RCREV. NO. 41 OF 2020
2
KAKSKARAGODE VILLAGE, KASARAGODE TALUK,
KASARGODE DISTRICT, PIN-671 121.
4 DEVANANDA,
S/O LALITHA, AGED 53 YEARS
RESIDING AT BEHIND VIKAS BHAVAN, MADHUR ROAD,
KAKSKARAGODE VILLAGE, KASARAGODE TALUK,
KASARGODE DISTRICT, PIN-671 121.
5 SHARADA,
AGED 47 YEARS
D/O LALITHA, RESIDING AT BEHIND VIKAS BHAVAN,
MADHUR ROAD, KAKSKARAGODE VILLAGE, KASARAGODE
TALUK, KASARGODE DISTRICT, PIN-671 121.
6 RADHA,
W/O LATE GOPALA, AGED 63 YEARS
RESIDING AT BEHIND VIKAS BHAVAN, MADHUR ROAD,
KAKSKARAGODE VILLAGE, KASARAGODE TALUK,
KASARGODE DISTRICT, PIN-671 121.
7 KUSHA KUMAR
S/O GOPALA, AGED 45 YEARS
RESIDING AT BEHIND VIKAS BHAVAN, MADHUR ROAD,
KAKSKARAGODE VILLAGE, KASARAGODE TALUK,
KASARGODE DISTRICT, PIN-671 121.
8 ROOPA,
S/O GOPALA, AGED 40 YEARS
RESIDING AT BEHIND VIKAS BHAVAN, MADHUR ROAD,
KAKSKARAGODE VILLAGE, KASARAGODE TALUK,
KASARGODE DISTRICT, PIN-671 121.
9 SUNANDA,
W/O SADASHIVA, AGED 55 YEARS
RESIDING AT BEHIND VIKAS BHAVAN, MADHUR ROAD,
KAKSKARAGODE VILLAGE, KASARAGODE TALUK,
KASARGODE DISTRICT, PIN-671 121.
10 K.BHANUMATHI,
S/O SADASHIVA, AGED 52 YEARS
RESIDING AT BEHIND VIKAS BHAVAN, MADHUR ROAD,
KAKSKARAGODE VILLAGE, KASARAGODE TALUK,
KASARGODE DISTRICT, PIN-671 121.
RCREV. NO. 41 OF 2020
3
11 JAYANTHA,
S/O DADASHIVA, AGED 45 YEARS
RESIDING AT BEHIND VIKAS BHAVAN, MADHUR ROAD,
KAKSKARAGODE VILLAGE, KASARAGODE TALUK,
KASARGODE DISTRICT, PIN-671 121.
12 PUSHPALATHA,
AGED 42 YEARS, D/O SADASHIVA,
RESIDING AT BEHIND VIKAS BHAVAN, MADHUR ROAD,
KAKSKARAGODE VILLAGE, KASARAGODE TALUK,
KASARGODE DISTRICT, PIN-671 121.
13 ASHOKA K,
AGED 37 YEARS, S/O SADASHIVA,
RESIDING AT BEHIND VIKAS BHAVAN, MADHUR ROAD,
KAKSKARAGODE VILLAGE, KASARAGODE TALUK,
KASARGODE DISTRICT, PIN-671 121.
THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 27.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RCREV. NO. 41 OF 2020
4
ORDER
Amit Rawal, J.
1. Landlord is before us against the concurrent finding
of the fact whereby R.C.A. No.14/2015 filed against the
judgment and decree dated 26.10.2015 of the Rent Controller
in R.C.P. No.32/2014 have been dismissed vide judgment
dated 02.02.2017. In essence petitioner-landlord has been
non-suited by accepting the objection of the tenants qua
identity and title of the property.
2. Petitioner-landlord sought eviction of respondents
vide R.C.P No.32/2014 on the ground that A schedule
property originally belong to one A.Vittal Pai, an absolute
owner, which was purchased by the father of the petitioner
vide sale deed dated 03.09.1957 and on his death, along with
his co-owners, inherited property and therefore, sought
eviction on the ground of subletting and causing damage to
the building under Sections 11(4)(i) and 11(4)(ii) of the
Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. It was
RCREV. NO. 41 OF 2020
further alleged that the previous tenant Shankaran Achary
started paying the rent on purchase of the property by way of
attornment but thereafter sold the property to K.Gokuldas
Shenoy expecting to be owner under the provisions of the
Land Reforms Act claiming the occupancy rights on long and
settled possession. The purchase certificate has come on
record as Ext.B1, dated 06.09.1974, of 10 cents of land. The
subsequent purchasers-respondents 2 to 13 challenged the
title of the petitioner on the ground that they are co-owners
in the property. Since the parties were at variance learned
Rent Controller framed the following issues:
1. Whether there is any landlord-tenant relation
between the petitioners and respondents ?
2. Has the petitioner proved that the respondents
sublet any portion of the petition 'A' schedule building
without the consent of the landlord ?
3. Has the petitioner proved that the respondent
used the petition 'A schedule building in such a
manner as to destroy or reduce its value or utility
RCREV. NO. 41 OF 2020
materially and permanently ?
4. Relief and costs ?
3. Both the parties brought on record following
documents:
Exhibits Marked for petitioner:
A1 - 7-6-2014 - Original reply notice sent
by Sri.K.M.Bhat, Advocate to
Sri.M. Mahalinga Bhat, Advocate,
Kasaragod
A2 - 27-5-2014 - Office copy of Registered notice
sent by Sri.M. Mahalinga Bhat to
the Respondents.
A3 - 5-8-2014 - Certified copy of Building Tax
Assessment Register in respect of
Door No.KMC.2/91, 92, 93 of
Kasaragod Municipality for the year
2013-14
A4 - 5-8-2014 - Certified copy Building Tax
Assessment Register in respect
of Door No.KMC.2/90 of
Kasaragod Municipality for the
year 2013-14
A5 - 13.12.2010 - Certified photostat copy of the
order passed in SM.315/2005 on
RCREV. NO. 41 OF 2020
the file of Land Tribunal,
Kasaragod.
A6 - 6.9.2014 - Registration Copy of Assignment
Deed of Chalgeni rights
(Doc.No.1362/1974) executed in
favour of Seethu by Korappalu
Padmavathi
A7 - 28.7.1951- Registered Term lease deed
entered into between A.Vittal
Pai, represented by G.P.A holder
K.P.Janardhana Prabhu and
Shankara Achary
A8 - 4-11-1975 - Certified copy of the order in
OA.3317/1972 on the file of
Spl.Tahsildar,(LR)IV, Kasaragod.
Exhibits Marked for Respondent:
B1 - 26.4.1976 - Purchase certificate issued by
Land Tribunal, Kasaragod in
OA.No.3317/1972.
R2 - 21.07.2015 - Assignment Order issued by the
Special Tahsildar (LR)IV,
Kasaragod.
4. On analysis of evidence, it was found that Rent
Controller would not have the power to decide the title as
RCREV. NO. 41 OF 2020
both the parties staked claim to the property on the basis of
the sale deed which had not brought on record but the
original lease deed executed by the previous vendor and
purchase certificate. Appeal preferred against the same was
also dismissed.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Petitioner/appellant submitted that both Courts below have
shifted the onus on the landlord to prove that respondents
are tenants in spite of admission but failed to notice that the
first tenant who sold the tenancy rights on the basis of the
purchase certificate of 1974 had attorned the petitioner's
father and the petitioner on payment of the rent as landlord.
No doubt the subsequent purchaser now being represented by
respondent Nos.2 to 13 did not attorn. Petitioner was not
properly advised to place on record the sale deed. Had it been
so, probably the property could have been identified. Be that
as it may. Once the previous tenant had attorned the
relationship of landlord - tenant existed and the rent petition
was maintainable.
RCREV. NO. 41 OF 2020
6. There is no representation on behalf of the contesting
respondents despite service. The matter is of 2020 and listed
for hearing, accordingly proceed to decide on merits.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner and appraised the paper book and of the view that
there is no force and merit in the argument, for, the basic
document which was required to place on record was the sale
deed to ascertain the identification of the property and the
extent/ area or the site plan attached thereto, to confirm
whether the property had been identified in occupation and
ownership of the previous vendor passing on the title to the
predecessor-in- interest of the petitioner whereas, on the
contrary, the original tenant on the basis of the purchase
certificate of 1974 passed on the title of area referred to
above to the other tenant represented through respondent
Nos.2 to 13. In this view of the matter, there remains an
ambiguity with regard to the identification of the title and
Rent Controller would not be empowered to decide the title,
for, it is yet to be ascertained whether both parties have joint
RCREV. NO. 41 OF 2020
ownership or a separate possession. Detailed evidence in that
regard was required to be lead in a competent court of law.
This is what the findings are.
We agree with the aforementioned findings and do not
find any illegality and perversity in the judgment and decree.
No ground for interference is made out. With the liberty
aforementioned Revision stands dismissed.
Sd/-
AMIT RAWAL
JUDGE
Sd/-
EASWARAN S.
JUDGE
nak
