Chinnamma vs Kerala Union Of Working Journalist
2024 Latest Caselaw 31333 Ker

Kerala High Court

Chinnamma vs Kerala Union Of Working Journalist on 2 November, 2024

Author: Amit Rawal

Bench: Amit Rawal

RCREV. NO. 111 OF 2024           1

                                                    2024:KER:81910
              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                              PRESENT

               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

                                 &

               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.

  SATURDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024 / 11TH KARTHIKA, 1946

                       RCREV. NO. 111 OF 2024

        AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 07.02.2024 IN RCA NO.82 OF 2020

OF III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR / II ADDITIONAL MACT,

THRISSUR ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER DATED 07.02.2020 IN RCP NO.19

OF 2015 OF I ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT ,THRISSUR

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT NO.2 AND ADDITIONAL APPELLANTS
3 TO 6/2ND RESPONDENT AND LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF DECEASED
RESPONDENT NO.1:
     1    CHINNAMMA
          AGED 80 YEARS
          W/O.ALAPPAT PALATHINGAL JOSE, 3A, HOLY VIEW, NEAR
          HOLY FAMILY SCHOOL, CHEMBUKKAVU VILLAGE AND POST,
          THRISSUR TALUK AND DISTRICT, PIN - 680020

    2       SAVIO PALATHINGAL
            AGED 58 YEARS
            S/O.P.V.JOSE, ALAPPAT PALATHINGAL HOUSE, CHEMBUKKAVU
            POST, THRISSUR DISTRICT,, PIN - 680020

    3       SABU JOSE PALATHINGAL
            AGED 56 YEARS
            S/O.P.V.JOSE, ALAPPAT PALATHINGAL HOUSE, PERINGAVU,
            CHEMBUKKAVU POST, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680020

    4       SONY PALATHINGAL
            AGED 49 YEARS
            /O.P.V.JOSE, ALAPPAT PALATHINGAL HOUSE, 7A, AVENUE
            HIGHTS, CHELAKKOTTUKARA, CHIYYARAM POST, THRISSUR
            DISTRICT, PIN - 680005
 RCREV. NO. 111 OF 2024         2

                                                  2024:KER:81910

    5     SINDHU PALATHINGAL
          AGED 45 YEARS
          W/O.SHERRY JOHNY, ALAPPAT PALATHINGAL, 3A NAVANI,
          HOLY VIEW, CHEMBUKKAVU POST, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN -
          680020


          BY ADVS.
          R.SREEHARI
          HAMZA A.V.
          VIGNESH S.
          DHANYA C.R.
          P.B.KRISHNAN (SR.)(K/1193/1994)




RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:

    1     KERALA UNION OF WORKING JOURNALIST
          KESARI BUILDINGS, PULIMOOD JUNCTION,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM POST, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,
          PIN - 695001

    2     KERALA UNION OF WORKING JOURNALIST
          THRISSUR UNIT, PRESS CLUB BUILDING, SWARAJ ROUND,
          THRISSUR CORPORATION, THRISSUR POST, THRISSUR
          DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, PIN - 680001

    3     KERALA UNION OF WORKING JOURNALIST
          THRISSUR UNIT, PRESS CLUB BUILDING, SWARAJ ROUND,
          THRISSUR CORPORATION, THRISSUR POST, THRISSUR
          DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN - 680001


          BY ADVS.
          Thampan Thomas
          B.V.JOY SANKAR(K/1195/1995)
          NINCY MATHEW(K/419/2007)
          HENA BAHULEYAN(K/000160/2007)



     THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
02.11.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 RCREV. NO. 111 OF 2024             3

                                                      2024:KER:81910
                              JUDGMENT

Amit Rawal, J.

Present revision petition is directed against the concurrent

findings of fact rendered in eviction petition bearing No.19 of 2015

filed by the respondent-landlord which has been upheld by the

Appellate authority vide judgment dated 7.2.2024 in RCA No.82 of

2020.

2. Succinctly, the facts in brief are that the respondents-

landlords, a registered trade Union under the Trade Unions Act, had

let out the petition schedule property to the respondent on a monthly

rent of Rs.10,000/- in addition to electricity and water charges. It

was categorically stated that the remaining portion of the building is

in occupation of the respondent-landlord. The landlord requires the

petition schedule property for additional accommodation for the

smooth running of association.

3. Petitioners entered appearance, filed the counter statement and

did not deny the status of the tenancy since 1994 but stated that they

had came into the premises after having paid the premium of

Rs.20,00,000/- to the previous tenant and also some part to the

landlord and thereafter, from 1.5.2008 onwards, has been paying the

rent @ Rs.10,000/-. Even with the permission of the landlord, had

2024:KER:81910 constructed the basement. This fact was not totally disclosed.

4. Since the parties were at variance, the learned Rent Controller

framed the following issues:

I. Whether the petitioner is entitled for a relief under section 11(8) of Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act ? II.Reliefs and costs?

Parties to the lis had examined the following witnesses and

brought on record the documents. The details of which are given

hereunder:

Petitioner's Exhibits:-

A1-Rent Deed dated, 01.05.2008, A2-Certified copy of Registration (Duplicate) 225/68, A3-Constitution of Kerala Union of Working Journalist, A4-Letter dated, 22.07.19, A5-Letter dated, 03.08.19, A6-Letter dated,28.08.17, A7-Letter dated,08.08.19, A8-Letter dated, 24.10.14.

A9-Kerala Gazette Notification dated, 17.08.71.

Petitioners' Witness:-

PW.1:VinithaM.V PW.2:Balakrishna n Kunnambath

Respondents Exhibits B1-(Series)Photos(B1toB1(f), B2-Certified copy of Plaint in OS.508/07 B3-Certified copy of IA.1807/07 in OS.508/07, B4-Certified copy of Judgment in OS.508/07 B5-Certified copy of Letter, B6-Rent Deed dated,02.05.1996, B7- Receipt dated,17.09.19.

B7(a)-Receipt dated,11.09.19, B8-Photo copy of Registration Certificate-marked subject to proof. B9-Registration Certificate, B10-Registration Certificate, B11-Registration Certificate, B12-Receipt dated, 26.04.17, B12(a)-Receipt dated,31.08.15.

2024:KER:81910 B13-Certificate of Registration dated,05.06.07, B14-Computer printout of Registration Certificate dated, 17.07.18. B15-(Series)Notices(B15&B15(a), B16-Certificate dated, 12.09.18. B17-Lawyer Notice dated,15.07.07 B18-Certified copyofOrderinIA.1807/07inOS.508/07. B19-Certified copy of Commission Report in IA.1808/07in OS.508/07- marked subject to proof B20-Certified copy of Award Copy in OS.508/07, B21Certified copy of Memo dated,13.07.99 B22-Certified copy of Certificate of Registration, B23-Certified copy of Receipt, B24(Seres)-Postal Receipts (B24&B24(a) B25 e-Money Order Payment dated,28.11.14 B25(a)e-Money Order Payment dated, 28.11.14 B26-Certified copy of Plaint in OS.7053/14, B27- Certified copy of written statement in OS7053/2014 B28-Certified copy of Decree in OS.7053/14 B29-Certified copy of photos B29 to B29 (c)-Marked subject to proof. B30-Passbook of Federal Bank, B31-Newspaper dated, 6.12.2019 - marked subject to proof

Respondents' Witness:-

RW1: Jose, RW2: Savio Palathinkal

Court Exhibits:

C1-Commission report by Adv.Shiny K.A C1(a)- Rough Sketch Court Witness:-

CW1:Adv. Shiny K.A

5. From the perusal of the issues framed and also the

objection/written statement, no objection qua maintainability of the

petition was arisen. Be that as it may. During the course of the

argument petitioner-tenant stated that the trade Union comes within

the ambit of sub Section 7 of Section 11 and therefore the petition

should have been filed under that provision keeping in view the

definition of the landlord prescribed therein. When there was a

2024:KER:81910 specific provisions available under the Act, petition under Section

11(8) of the Act was not maintainable.

6. Learned Rent Controller on analysis of the legal submissions

and the documents allowed the eviction petition. Appeal preferred

against them has also been dismissed.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners challenged the judgment

aforementioned on the premise that the courts below utterly failed to

consider the crucial legal aspects that the petition filed under section

11(8) of the 1965 Act, was not maintainable in the light of the

specific statutory mandate of Section 11(7) of the 1965 Act. Trade

Union is a public institution under the provisions of Section 11(7) of

the Act, 1965 therefore could not have invoked the provisions of

Section 11(8) of the Act, as it is fatal to the adjudication; the rent

petition was liable to be dismissed.

8. 1965 Act precludes the public institution from filing the rent

control petition under Section 11(8) of the Act without seeking relief

under Section 11(7) of the Act. In support of the contentions relied

upon the following case laws.

a) Sheela V.M v. KAMCO Employees Union (2010 KHC 425) by by

contending that the rigours of requirement as provided under sub

Section 3 of Section 11 pertaining to bonafide need of individual

landlord is considerably reduced in a case of protection under sub

2024:KER:81910 Section 8 of Section 11. The concept of comparative hardship is

introduced by sub Section 10 of Section 11.

b) Social Service Guild of Assissi Sisters v. Ouseph Chacko (2009 (2)

KLT 199): The question of law raised therein was for drawing a

distinction between the provisions of sub Section 3 of Section 11 and

sub Section 7 of Section 11 as the sub Section 3 deals with the

bonafide need of the individual landlord whereas sub Section 7 of

Section 11 is of trade Union or public institution.

9. The scheduled property was taken from the Association.

However from reading of cross examination of PW1, it was brought

to the notice of the court that scheduled property stood in the name

of the working journalists Association by way of gift, Ext.A9 and not

in the name of the Association. Even the petition was conspicuously

silent as to how the respondent, Association obtained the possession

of the scheduled property, for, in the cross examination for the first

time, it was noticed that the said property was transferred by the

Thrissur Municipality to Working Journalists Association by way of

gift.

10. On the other hand, Thampan Thomas, learned counsel

appearing for the 3rd respondent, Kerala Union of Working Journalist

argued that the petitioners-tenants specifically admitted the title of

the petitioners over the petition schedule room and therefore

2024:KER:81910 estopped from challenging the title. The petitioners are badly in

need of the tenanted premises to expand the Press Club Hall for the

smooth functioning of the Association. The petitioner No.1 is an

Association registered under the Trade Unions Act and petitioners 2

and 3 are the authorized persons to represent the 1 st petitioner-

landlord. The schedule property was leased out to the petitioner-

tenant vide rent deed Ext.A1 of the year 2008. In the counter,

petitioners-tenants had specifically admitted that they have entered

into a lease agreement with petitioners. In lis, testimony deposed

that he did not know whether the petition schedule building belongs

to the respondents-landlords-rent petitioners or not.

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

appraised the paper book. Sub Section 3 of Section 11 of the 1965

Act deals with the bonafide need of an individual landlord whereas

Sub Section 7 and 8 of Section 11 of 1965 Act reads as under:

11(3) A landlord may apply to the Rent Control Court for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building if he bona fide needs the building for his own occupation or for the occupation by any member of his family dependent on him.Provided that the Rent Control Court shall not give any such direction if the landlord has another building of his own in his possession in the same city, town or village except where the Rent Control Court is satisfied that for special reasons in any particular case it will be just and proper to do so;Provided further that the Rent Control Court shall not give any direct to a tenant to put the landlord in possession if such tenant is depending for his livelihood mainly on the income derived from any trade, or business carried on in such building and there is no other suitable building available in the locality for such person to carry on such trade or business;Provided further that no

2024:KER:81910 landlord whose right to recover possession under an instrument of transfer inter vivos shall be entitled to apply to be put in possession until the expiry of one year form the date of such transfer;Provided further that if a landlord after obtaining an order to be put in possession transfers his rights in respect of the building to another person, the transferee shall not be entitled to be put in possession unless he proves that he bona fide needs the building for his own occupation or for the occupation of any member of his family dependent on him.

11 (7) Where the landlord of the building is a religious, charitable, educational or other public institution, it may if the building is needed for the purposes of the institution, apply to the Rent Control Court for an order directing the tenant to put the institution in possession of the building.

11 (8) A landlord who is occupying only a part of a building, may apply to the Rent Control Court for an order directing any tenant occupying the whole or any portion of the remaining part of the building to put the landlord in possession thereof, if he requires additional accommodation for his personal use.

12. Sub Section 7 of Section 11 provides where the landlord of

the building is a religious, charitable, educational or other public

institution, it may if the building is needed for the purpose of

institution, can apply to the Rent Control Court for an order directing

the tenant to put the institution in possession of the building whereas

sub Section 8 provides the landlord who is occupying only a part of a

building, may apply to the Rent Control Court for an order directing

any tenant occupying the whole or any portion of the remaining part

of the building to put the landlord in possession thereof, if the

landlord requires additional accommodation for personal use. In the

instant case, the petitioners-tenants have admitted that the 1 st

2024:KER:81910 respondent is an Association registered under the Trade Unions Act.

Therefore under sub Section 7 of Section 11, Association will come

under the definition of the public institution. No doubt, the rent

petition has been filed by invoking sub Section 8 of Section 11 of the

Act on the premise that the entire building except for the tenanted

premises is in possession of the respondent-landlord. Mere

mentioning of the wrong provision will not take away the statutory

right of the landlord to seek eviction. Even otherwise, there is no

deterrent clause under sub Section 7 of Section 11 expressly

precluding the landlord a public institution, not to file rent petition

under Sub Section 8 of Section 11 of the Act or otherwise has to be

under sub Section 7 of Section 11. In Sheela V.M (supra), was a case

of trade union which was held to be public institution and held that

the petition under sub Section 7 and sub Section 8 of Section 11 are

maintainable. The Commissioner Report Ext.C1 placed on record

reveals that the schedule shop is situated on the ground floor where

the office of the respondent-landlord is situated in other three floors

and there is shortage of space in the library as well as reading room.

In order to reach the office of the respondents, one has to go through

the reading room. The petitioners-tenants have not been able to

place on record any document to belie or contradict the

aforementioned report. The landlord is the best judge to claim area

2024:KER:81910 for personal necessity and the tenant cannot be permitted to dictate

the landlord.

13. For the sake of repetition, the wrong mentioning of the

petitioners-tenants will not dis-entitle the landlord from seeking the

eviction on the ground of personal necessity. For the reason

aforementioned, we do not find any illegality or perversity in the

impugned order. No ground for interference is made out. Revision

petition stands dismissed.

Sd/-

AMIT RAWAL JUDGE

Sd/-

sab                                        EASWARAN S.
                                               JUDGE