Rent Control Act | Pleadings Regarding Denial Of Title Or Claim For Permanent Tenancy Must Be Clear & Specific: Kerala High Court

“The Pleading regarding the denial of title or the claim for permanent tenancy must be clear, specific, and unequivocal, without which the Rent Control Court cannot assess whether the said contention was raised in good faith or was merely a pretext for eviction.”

The Division Bench of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice P. Krishna Kumar observed that there is a statutory duty on the court to examine the genuineness of the claim before making a crucial decision.

The predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner entered into tenancy with the prior owner of the building. The tenancy continued after the death of the original tenant. The current landlord wanted to evict the current tenants saying that his dependent son needed the building for his occupation. The tenants claimed that the claim was not genuine. The Rent Control Court and the Appellant Authority ordered eviction of the tenants. The tenants are challenging that order.

The petitioner claimed that their predecessor-in-interest was a commercial tenant and was protected from eviction by virtue of Section 106 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. They submitted before the Court that there were specific contentions in the written objection that the tenancy commenced on 18/08/1961 and the original tenant had reconstructed the building by using his own money after obtaining the consent of the prior owner for conducting business in Pooja articles. The petitioner argued that this legal question was not considered by the Rent Control Court and Appellant Authority even though the petitioner had given oral evidence as witness.

The Court held that the argument cannot be accepted as the petitioner failed to argue this point specifically and explicitly. The Court observed that though the rule of pleadings may not strictly apply in rent control proceedings, when there is a duty on the Court to examine the genuineness of a claim, the party who wants to make that claim should plead it with certainty and particularity.

The Court further observed that when a petitioner is claiming the protection of Section 106 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, they must establish that the they were granted lease for commercial purpose and the tenant after grant of lease constructed the building or structure before 20/05/1967. The Court held that in the absence of specific contention to that effect, the petitioner cannot claim protection of Section 106.

Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.

Case No: RCRev No. 228 of 2024

Case Title: Maya M. T. and Others v Nadukkandy P. C. Ashraf

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 789