Kerala High Court
Leelamma Punnoos vs Shyla on 7 November, 2024
1
O.P.(C) NO.2474 OF 2016
2024:KER:82879
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI
THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024 / 16TH KARTHIKA, 1946
O.P.(C) NO.2474 OF 2016
(AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 17.08.2016 IN I.A.No.12 OF 2015 IN
AA NO.3 OF 2015 OF APPELLATE AUTHORITY (LR), ALAPPUZHA)
PETITIONER:COUNTER-PETITIONER/1ST RESPONDENT
LEELAMMA PUNNOOS, W/O PUNNOOS, KUNDAKKASSERIL HOSUE,
MAMPUZHAKKARI, RAMANKARI VILLAGE,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688 001.
BY ADV DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM
SMT. MARY CATHERINE PRIYANKA P.S.
RESPONDENTS:PETITIONER-APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT
1 SHYLA, W/O ABDUL RAHIM, SHYLA MANZIL, NADAKKAVU ROAD,
CHUNGAM WARD, ALAPPUZHA-688 001.
2 AISHA, D/O ABDUL RAHIM KUNJU FATHIMA KUNJU,
THEKKE VEEDU HOUSE, CHUNGAM WARD, ALAPPUZHA-688 001.
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.ARJUN VENUGOPAL
SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR
SMT.MARY RESHMA GEORGE
SMT.P.M.MAZNA MANSOOR
SRI.R.NANDAGOPAL
SRI.C.R.SYAMKUMAR
SRI.ANOOP KRISHNA
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.10.2016, THE COURT
ON 07.11.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
O.P.(C) NO.2474 OF 2016
2024:KER:82879
JUDGMENT
(Dated: 7th November, 2024)
The petitioner is the 1st respondent in I.A.No.12 of 2015 in
A.A.No.3 of 2015 before the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms),
Alappuzha. The said I.A. was filed to condone the delay in filing the
appeal under Section 102 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (Act 1
of 1964) against the letter dated 23.06.2014 by the Land Tribunal in
S.R.No.176 of 2013.
2. The petitioner is the owner of a shop room in which 1st
respondent was a tenant. R.C.P. 2 of 2006 was filed before the Rent
Control Court (Principal Munsiff's Court), Alappuzha for evicting the 1st
respondent. A contention was raised by the 1st respondent that her
father was a lessee of the property from 1948 onwards, which was
disallowed by the learned Rent Control Court and eviction was
ordered. I.A.No.1360 of 2008 was filed to amend the objection of the
1st respondent for incorporating a contention that the building was put
up by her predecessor in interest upon the land which was leased out
O.P.(C) NO.2474 OF 2016
2024:KER:82879
for commercial purposes and claimed benefit of Section 106 of the
Kerala Land Reforms Act, and the Rent Control Court dismissed the
said application.
3. The tenant filed RCA No.27 of 2008 against the judgment
of RCP No.2 of 2006, which was confirmed, against which R.C. Revision
No.160 of 2010 was filed by the 1st respondent before this Court, and
this Court by judgment dated 18.06.2010 directed the Rent Control
Court to consider the additional plea along with other pleadings,
whether the revision petitioner is entitled to immunity from eviction
under section 106.
4. The Rent Control petition was thereafter allowed, and
eviction was ordered, thereafter the appeal was filed against the R.C.A.
No.41 of 2011 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Alappuzha,
which was also dismissed. Again, revision came up in R.C.R. No.170 of
2015 before this Court. While so, the 1st respondent filed a petition
before the Land Tribunal, Cherthala under Section 72 of the Kerala
O.P.(C) NO.2474 OF 2016
2024:KER:82879
Land Reforms Act to initiate suo motu proceedings for purchase of land
lord's rights, which was dismissed by the Land Tribunal.
5. The 1st respondent filed an appeal before the Appellate
Authority as A.A.No.3 of 2015 with a petition to condone the delay in
filing the said appeal. Though the petitioner filed objections to the
petition to condone the delay in filing the appeal, the appellate
authority by Ext.P6 order condoned the delay. Aggrieved by the said,
this original petition is filed by the petitioner.
6. Heard Smt. Mary Catherine Priyanka, representing counsel
for the petitioner, and Sri. Anoop Krishna, counsel for the respondents.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made available the
judgment of this court in R.C. Revision No.170 of 2015, whereby the
eviction was confirmed by this court.
In paragraph 14 of the judgment, it was specifically stated as follows:
14. Coming to Exts.B1 to B7 documents produced by the
tenant, Exts.B2 and B3 are photocopies of the settlement
registers issued by the Tahsildar, Ambalappuzha. Neither
Ext. B2 nor Ext.B3 gives rise to any evidence as to the claim
of permanent tenancy under Section 106 of the KLR Act.
O.P.(C) NO.2474 OF 2016
2024:KER:82879
Exts B2 and B3 do not refer to any period to which they
relate. Exts. B4 and B5 are electricity bills issued by the
Kerala State Electricity Board. It is pertinent to note that
the consumer numbers in Exts.B4 and B5 are entirely
different and there is no material, on record, to prove that
the consumer number referred to in Exts.B4 or B5 is the
consumer number of the petition schedule building.
Further, Ext.B6 series show that, during the pendency of
the Rent Control Petition, the tenant herein had applied for
issuing patta, in respect of the petition schedule building,
before the Land Tribunal, under the alleged claim of
Section 106 of the KLR Act, without Impleading the
landlord herein as party and the Tribunal rejected the
application stating that she is not entitled to get patta.
Similarly, Ext.B7 established that the tenant herein is the
only legal heir of the deceased parents and she is
continuing the tenancy in the schedule building after the
death of her mother as a statutory tenant. Thus, Ext.B7 cut
the root of her claim under Section 106 of the KLR Act.
However, even if Exts. B2 to B7 are admitted, at its face
value, and taken in evidence as such, none of the
documents would prove that the petition schedule building
was constructed for industrial or commercial purpose by
the predecessor of the tenant before 20th May, 1967. We
find that the courts below have rightly evaluated the
evidenciary value of Exts.B2 to B7 and found that those
documents would not establish a prima facie case under
Section 106 of the KLR Act. Therefore, the courts below are
justified in not placing reliance on Exts.B2 to B7. There is
no illegality or impropriety in the finding that the claim of
permanent lease under Section 106 of the Kerala Land
Reforms Act and the denial of title of the landlord are made
without any kind of bona fides. The courts below are
justified in finding that the tenant is liable to be evicted
under the provisions of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and
Rent Control) Act. The Revision Petitioner/tenant has not
challenged the findings under Section 11(3) of the Act in
this Revision. Therefore, the concurrent findings under
O.P.(C) NO.2474 OF 2016
2024:KER:82879
Section 11(3) of the Act do not require any consideration
in this Revision Petition.
It is also brought to the notice that the building in question was
abolished after evicting the respondents from the premises and a new
building has been put up. On that point also, the petition before the
Appellate Authority will not lie, Therefore, Ext.P6 is set aside, and the
Original Petition is allowed.
Sd/-
BASANT BALAJI,
JUDGE
ss
O.P.(C) NO.2474 OF 2016
2024:KER:82879
APPENDIX OF OP(C) 2474/2016
PETITIONER EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE
COURT IN R.C.REV.NO.160 OF 2010.
EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF LETTER IN SR NO.176/2013 ISSUED BY
THE LAND TRIBUNAL.
EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 30.4.2010 OF THE SPECIAL
TAHSILDAR, LAND REFORMS CHERTHALA.
EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL IN AA NO.3 OF
2015 BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY (LAND
REFORMS), ALAPPUZHA.
EXHIBIT P4(A): TRUE COPY OF PETITION TO CONDONE THE DELAY IN
FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY
(LAND REFORMS) ALAPPUZHA.
EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF OBJECTIONS TO THE PETITION TO CONDONE
THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE
PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P6: COPY OF APPELLAE AUTHORITY (LAND REFORMS)
ALAPPUZHA BY ORDER DATED 17.8.2016.
