JUDGEMENT
C.S.SUDHA,J. -
(1.)This rent control revision under Sec. 20 of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (the Act) is filed against the judgment
dtd. 12/04/2016 in R.C.A.No.22/2008 on the file of the Rent Control
Appellate Authority-I, Thiruvananthapuram. The appeal was preferred by the
petitioner/landlord against the order dtd. 21/02/2008 dismissing
R.C.P.No.28/1988. The respondent/tenant in the R.C.P. and the respondent
before the Appellate Authority is the revision petitioner herein. The
respondents herein are the legal representatives of the original petitioner. The
parties and documents will be referred to as described in the R.C.P.
(2.)The R.C.P. was filed seeking eviction of the respondent/tenant under Ss. 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act. The petitioner alleged that the petition
schedule building along with 2.90 cents of property had been purchased by
him from Harihara Iyer as per Ext.A1 sale deed dtd. 10/09/1986. The
respondent is the tenant of the building on a monthly rent of 60/-. The
respondent had paid rent by way of money order to Harihara Iyer till the
execution of Ext.A1 sale deed. After execution of Ext.A1 sale deed, the
respondent was intimated that the ownership of the property had passed to the
petitioner and was also requested to pay the future rent to the latter. However,
the respondent refused to attorn to the petitioner. The respondent has defaulted
payment of rent from September 1986 onwards. The petitioner is residing in a
rental building for a monthly rent of 600/-. The petitioner has no other
building of his own in his possession within the city. Therefore he bona fide
needs the petition schedule building for his own residence with family.
Though the respondent was requested to vacate the building, he has refused to
do so and hence the R.C.P. claiming eviction under Ss. 11(2)(b) and
11(3) of the Act. The petitioner has also denied the contention raised by the respondent in his reply that he is a Kudikidappukaran of the petition schedule
building. According to the petitioner, the building is not a hut and also that the
respondent, a Government servant, is not entitled to claim Kudikidappu right
over the building.
(3.)The respondent/tenant filed counter to the R.C.P. denying the existence of any landlord-tenant relationship between the parties. According
to him, the building was initially taken on rent by his mother Gouri Amma
from Harihara Iyer in the year 1958 on a monthly rent of 3/-. Gouri Amma
who was residing in the building along with her family, passed away in the
year 1975 and her leasehold right over the building devolved on her husband
and five children including the respondent. The husband of Gouri Amma
passed away in the year 1976 and the leasehold right has now vested on the
five children of Gouri Amma. The building, a hut as defined under the Kerala
Land Reforms Act, 1963 (the KLR Act), is more than 50 years old. At the
time of its construction, the cost was less than 750/-. Gouri Amma and
thereafter the respondent had reconstructed the building at their own expense.
The respondent has been in peaceful possession of the building along with his
mother and subsequent to his mother's death, the respondent has been paying
rent without default in continuation of the rental arrangement. The respondent
is not having any land or building other than the schedule building and
therefore he is a Kudikidappukaran as defined under the provisions of the
KLR Act. After the demise of the respondent's father, Harihara lyer, the
original landlord, had made several attempts to evict the respondent and his
family members from the scheduled building, but was unsuccessful. It is
thereafter Ext.A1, a sham document, has been created in favour of the
petitioner, though Harihara lyer had no alienable right over the property. The
petition is devoid of any bona fides. The allegation that rent at the rate of 60/-
was being paid, is false and incorrect. The need alleged is only a ruse for
eviction. Therefore, the contention is that the petitioner is not entitled to the
reliefs prayed for in the petition.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.