Rent Controller Can 'Direct' Landlord To Sue For Eviction Of Tenant After Prima Facie Satisfaction On Permanent Tenancy Claim: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court recently delved upon the scope of enquiry and competency of the Rent Controller to decide on disputes pertaining to the claim of permanent tenancy under Section 11(1) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965.

The division bench of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen observed that as per the second proviso to Section 11(1) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, the Rent Control Court has the jurisdiction to consider the question.

"...the Rent Controller has to prima facie satisfy that the denial of title or the claim of permanent tenancy is bona fide. It is after recording prima facie satisfaction on bona fides of the dispute, the Rent Controller can direct the landlord to sue for eviction of the tenant in a Civil Court. It is then for the Civil Court to decide on a title and pass a decree for eviction on enumerated grounds under the Act, if the Civil Court is satisfied with the title of the landlord", it was observed. 

The Court further added that the dispute on title would have to be contextually relevant in the light of the definition of 'landlord' and 'tenant' enshrined in Sections 2 (3) and 2 (6) of the Act, respectively. 

"That means, if there are no materials to hold the relationship as defined as above under the Act, further enquiry is warranted on title. If the enquiry conducted by the Rent Controller satisfies the existence of jural relationship of the landlord and the tenant, the tenant would be estopped from raising the further claim of the permanent tenancy or to raise a dispute on the title of the landlord," it held. 

The Court in this case was dealing with the question of denial of the title of the landlord. The revision petitioners in the case submitted that they were in possession of the building through their predecessor-in-interest. It was contended that the the great grandfather of the respondents had put their father in possession of the land having an extent of 36 cents on a ground rent for commercial lease, and it was thereafter that their late father constructed a building on the land for the purposes of running a partnership business in stage carriage.

The respondents in this case proceeded with a petition for eviction of the tenants - the revision petitioners, on the ground that the land was owned by their father, and he gave the building to the late father of the revision petitioners. 

Both Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority overruled the objection raised by the revision petitioners when the matter was before them, and ordered their eviction under Section 11(4)(iv) of the Act, 1965.

The division bench noted that the dispute arose since there were no documents to prove the landlord-tenant relationship, nor were there any rent receipts in this regard. However, at the time of the trial, the respondents produced the rent deed which had been executed on November 15, 1963 between the fathers of the revision petitioners and the respondents. The document indicated that the predecessor-in-interest of the revision petitioners was the building tenant, and had an obligation to pay rent of Rs.265/- per month.

The Court noted that the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority had placed reliance on the genuineness of the document on the presumption available under Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 

The Court observed that the document was a genuine one. "We need not doubt the genuineness of Ext.A37 in the light of the fact that it was produced from proper custody," it said. 

The Court went on to observe that, 

"It is to be remembered that the revision petitioners have no claim over the land where the building is situated. In normal course, where the land and building exist, it has to be assumed that the ownership of the building is with the landowner unless the party, claiming exclusive right over the building, is able to prove that the ownership of the building is vested with him. The tenants were having documents to evidence signature of late P.P.Kuriakose, their predecessor-in-interest. Their cross examination in this regard clearly spell that the tenants are withholding original signature of late P.P.Kuriakose for perusal by the Court. If Ext.37 concludes the landlord-tenant relationship, the tenants are estopped from disputing the title of the landlords". 

The Court thus went on to declare that the tenancy relationship was conclusively established by the document, and that both the authorities were justified in holding that the disputes raised by the revision petitioners were not bona fide. 

"The landlords claim rent at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month. There was no material to hold that the tenants were paying rent at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month. This is how the Appellate Authority reversed the order and fixed the rent as stipulated in Ext.A37. We also hold the same view of the Appellate Authority. The rent arrears, therefore, will have to be paid in accordance with the directions of the Appellate Authority," the Court held. 

The Rent Control Revision was thus dismissed. 

The revision petitioners were represented by Advocates K. Paul Kuriakose, Eldo Kuriakose, K.A. Anish, and T.A. Rafeek. Advocate M.P. Ramnath appeared on behalf of the respondents. 

Case Title: P.K. Sajeev & Ors. v. Eldho P. Mathew & Ors. 

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 53

Click Here To Read/Download The Order