Kerala High Court
Sandhya vs A.P.Nazar on 11 June, 2025
Author: A.Muhamed Mustaque
Bench: A.Muhamed Mustaque
R.C. Rev. No.157/2021 :1:
2025:KER:41250
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JOHNSON JOHN
WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 21ST JYAISHTA, 1947
RCREV. NO. 157 OF 2021
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 03.09.2021 IN RCA NO.46 OF 2020 OF RENT
CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY/ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, VADAKARA ARISING
OUT OF THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 06.01.2020 IN RCP NO.29 OF 2015 OF RENT
CONTROL COURT, VADAKARA
REVISION PETITIONER/4TH RESPONDENT IN RCA/4TH RESPONDENT IN RCP:
SANDHYA, AGED 36 YEARS, W/O.SUNILKUMAR, DOOR NO.7/949,
KHADI SHOP MAIN ROAD, ORAKKATTERI, VATAKARA TALUK,
KOZHIKODE - 673 501.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.B.KRISHNAN
SHRI.R.PARTHASARATHY
RESPONDENTS/APPELLANT & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 IN RCA/PETITIONER &
RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 IN RCP:
1 A.P.NAZAR, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED, FATHIMA MANZIL,
KACHERI AMSOM, KOTTEMBRAM DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK,
KOZHIKODE - 673 501.
2 MOITHU, AGED 66 YEARS, S/O.KUNHAMMED, THATTANKANDI THAZHE
KUNIYIL HOUSE, KARTHIKAPALLI AMSOM, DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK,
KOZHIKODE - 673 542.
3 NADUKKANDI AMMAD HAJI, AGED 66 YEARS,
S/O.ABOOBACKER, REMISA MANZIL, ERAMALA AMSOM, DESOM,
VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE - 673 501.
4 RAHIM, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.KUNHAMMAD, THATTANKANDI THAZHE
KUNIYIL HOUSE, KARTHIKAPPALLI AMSOM, DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK,
KOZHIKODE - 673 542.
BY ADV SRI.R.NIKHIL
THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
11.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
R.C. Rev. No.157/2021 :2:
2025:KER:41250
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE & JOHNSON JOHN, JJ.
---------------------------------------------------------
R.C. Rev. No. 157 of 2021
---------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of June, 2025
ORDER
Johnson John, J.
This revision petition is filed by the 4 th respondent in R.C.A
No. 46 of 2020 of the Rent Control Appellate Authority.
2. The landlord filed an application for eviction under Sections
11(2(b) and 11(4)(i) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control)
Act, 1965 ('the Act' for short) by stating that respondents 1 and 2, while
continuing as tenants, subleased the shop room to the 4 th respondent,
without the consent and knowledge of the petitioner and the erstwhile
landlord.
3. Pursuant to a mediation, respondents 1 and 2 surrendered the
leasehold right over 7 shop rooms and after executing a fresh
agreement, on 05.12.2012, respondents 1 and 3 have taken 3 rooms on
lease and respondents 1 to 3 also undertook that they would evict the 4 th
respondent from the petition schedule shop room. When respondents 1
to 3 committed default in payment of rent and also failed to evict the 4th
respondent, the petition seeking eviction was filed before the Rent
Control Court.
2025:KER:41250
4. Before the Rent Control Court, respondents 1 and 2 contended
that they have no connection with the petition schedule shop room and
that on the basis of the mediation talk, they have surrendered all the 7
rooms to the petitioner and accordingly, the previous petition--R. C. P
No. 75 of 2012, was dismissed. It is contended that after the dismissal
of R.C.P No. 75 of 2012, they entered into a fresh rent agreement with
respect to 3 shop rooms. The 3 rd respondent contended that he is an
unnecessary party to the petition.
5. The 4th respondent (revision petitioner) contended that he has
been conducting business in the premises with the consent of the
petitioner even at the time of filing of R.C.P No. 75 of 2012 and since
R.C.P. No. 75 of 2012 is settled in terms of Order XXIII of CPC, the
subsequent petition filed seeking eviction is barred under Section 15 of
the Act and Order XXIII of CPC. The Rent Control Court dismissed the
petition on a finding that there is no reliable evidence to show that the
4th respondent is a sublessee under the remaining respondents.
6. The appellate authority, after re-appreciating the evidence,
found that the original tenants were respondents 1 and 2 and that no
2025:KER:41250
evidence is adduced by the 4 th respondent as to how she came into
possession of the building. It is pertinent to note that when the 1 st
respondent is examined as RW1, it has come out in evidence that the
respondents obtained lease of 8 shop rooms from the earlier landlord
and subsequently, 5 rooms were surrendered on 05.10.2012 and that
the petition schedule room was in the possession of the 4 th respondent
from 2009 onwards.
7. Even though, the 4th respondent pleaded that she is occupying
the room with the consent of the present landlord, she has not chosen to
enter the witness box to depose the said fact. The evidence of RW2 --an
independent witness, shows that originally, the building was in the
possession of the 1st respondent and thereafter, the 4th respondent came
into possession of the room. It is pertinent to note that the specific
case of the landlord that the rent is in arrears from September, 2012
onwards, is not seen specifically denied by any of the respondents in the
counter statement.
8. The appellate authority has given cogent reasons for arriving at
a finding that the 4th respondent is a sublessee and that the rent was
2025:KER:41250
wilfully kept in arrears and hence, eviction was ordered under Sections
11(2)(b) and 11(4)(i) of the Act. We find no reason to disagree with
the finding of the appellate authority that a subsequent rent control
petition is not barred for the reason that a previous petition was
dismissed as not pressed, as there was no consideration of the grounds
on merit and the claim was not finally decided. It is also pertinent to
note that the subsequent petition seeking eviction is based on a
subsequent cause of action and therefore, the contention of the revision
petitioner in this regard is not legally sustainable.
9. We find no legal infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned
judgment warranting interference in revision and therefore, this revision
petition is liable to be dismissed.
In the result, this revision petition is dismissed.
sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE,
JUDGE.
sd/-
JOHNSON JOHN,
JUDGE.
Rv
