Kerala High Court
Nilavarnneesa vs Muhammed Mansoor on 16 June, 2025
Author: A.Muhamed Mustaque
Bench: A.Muhamed Mustaque
:1:
R.C. Rev. No. 123 of 2025
2025:KER:42438
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JOHNSON JOHN
MONDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 26TH JYAISHTA, 1947
RCREV. NO. 123 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.12.2024 IN RCA NO.6 OF 2023 OF III REN
CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER DATED
20.12.2022 IN RCP NO.8 OF 2015 OF RENT CONTROL (MUNSIFF) COURT, CHITTUR
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT:
NILAVARNNEESA, AGED 45 YEARS, D/O.AALIKUTTY, PALLIKOODAM
HOUSE, 5/368, ESALA, VATTARAM, PUDUNAGARAM VILLAGE, CHITTUR
TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678 503.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.K.N.ABHILASH
SHRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT
SHRI.RISHI VARMA T.R.
SHRI.RITHIK S.ANAND
SHRI.T.R.ANIL VENUGOPAL
SHRI.SREEJITH A.
SMT.TEENA M. ASHOK
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDNETS & SUPPL. RESPONDENTS 13 TO 19/PETITIONERS &
RESPONDENTS 3 TO 7:
1 MUHAMMED MANSOOR, AGED 78 YEARS,
S/O.ABDUL MAJEED, PUDUNAGARAM, PUDUNAGARAM VILLAGE,
CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678 503.
2 MALIHA BEEBI, AGED 76 YEARS,
D/O.ABDUL MAJEED, PUDUNAGARAM, PUDUNAGARAM VILLAGE,
CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678 503.
:2:
R.C. Rev. No. 123 of 2025
2025:KER:42438
3 MUMTHAJ BEEGAM, AGED 72 YEARS,
D/O.ABDUL MAJEED, PUDUNAGARAM, PUDUNAGARAM VILLAGE,
CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678 503.
4 SHAMSAD, AGED 70 YEARS, D/O.ABDUL MAJEED, PUDUNAGARAM,
PUDUNAGARAM VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
PIN - 678 503.
5 NASARUDHEEN, AGED 68 YEARS,
S/O.ABDUL MAJEED, PUDUNAGARAM, PUDUNAGARAM VILLAGE,
CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678 503.
6 MUHAMMED MUKTHAR, AGED 66 YEARS,
S/O.ABDUL MAJEED, PUDUNAGARAM, PUDUNAGARAM VILLAGE,
CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678 503.
7 HUMAYOON KABEER, AGED 59 YEARS,
S/O.ABDUL MAJEED, PUDUNAGARAM, PUDUNAGARAM VILLAGE,
CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678 503.
8 HAMSA, AGED 69 YEARS,
S/O. ALIKKUTTI @ ALI MUHAMMED, 5/368, PALLIKOODAM HOUSE,
ISALA VATTARAM, PUDUNAGARAM VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, (DIED)., PIN - 678 503.
9 SHAMSUDHEEN, AGED 58 YEARS
S/O.ABDUL KHADER, 5/368, PALLIKOODAM HOUSE, ISALA VATTARAM,
PUDUNAGARAM VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
PIN - 678 503.
10 SHAMSEENA, AGED 32 YEARS, D/O.SHAMSUDHEEN, 5/368,
PALLIKOODAM HOUSE, ISALA VATTARAM, PUDUNAGARAM VILLAGE,
CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678 503.
11 SHANI, AGED 28 YEARS, D/O.SHAMSUDHEEN, 5/368, PALLIKOODAM
HOUSE, ISALA VATTARAM, PUDUNAGARAM VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678 503.
12 SANOOP, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.SHAMSUDHEEN, 5/368, PALLIKOODAM
HOUSE, ISALA VATTARAM, PUDUNAGARAM VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678 503.
13 HAJIRA, W/O. (LATE) HAMSA, SATHRAVATTARAM, PUTHUNAGARAM
PANCHAYAT, CHITTY TALUK, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678 507.
14 MUHAMMED SHEREEF. H., AGED 43 YEARS,
S/O. (LATE) HAMSA, KOSAKKADA, NEAR BHARAT PETROL PUMP,
:3:
R.C. Rev. No. 123 of 2025
2025:KER:42438
ANGALAMMAL KOVIL, PUTHUNAGARAM PANCHAYAT, CHITTUR TALUK,
PALAKKAD, PIN - 678 507.
15 SUHRA, AGED 44 YEARS, D/O. (LATE) HAMSA, SATHRAVATTARAM,
PUTHUNAGARAM PANCHAYAT, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD,
PIN - 678 507.
16 ANSAR, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. (LATE) HAMSA, SATHRAVATTARAM,
PUTHUNAGARAM PANCHAYAT, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD,
PIN - 678 507.
17 RAJEENA, AGED 36 YEARS, W/O. (LATE) MOHAMMED HANEEFA,
SATHRAVATTARAM, PUTHUNAGARAM PANCHAYAT, CHITTUR TALUK,
PALAKKAD, PIN - 678 507.
18 HANA FATHIMA, AGED 10 YEARS, D/O. (LATE) MOHAMMED HANEEFA,
REP. BY HER MOTHER RAJEENA, W/O. (LATE) MOHAMMED HANEEFA,
SATHRAVATTARAM, PUTHUNAGARAM PANCHAYAT, CHITTUR TALUK,
PALAKKAD, PIN - 678 507.
19 IBRAHIM, AGED 6 YEARS, SLO. (LATE) MOHAMMED HANEEFA, REP. BY
HER MOTHER RAJEENA, W/O. (LATE) MOHAMMED HANEEFA,
SATHRAVATTARAM, PUTHUNAGARAM PANCHAYAT, CHITTUR TALUK,
PALAKKAD, PIN - 678 507.
THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.06.2025,
THE COURT ON 16.06.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
:4:
R.C. Rev. No. 123 of 2025
2025:KER:42438
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE & JOHNSON JOHN, JJ.
---------------------------------------------------------
R.C. Rev. No. 123 of 2025
---------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 16th day of June, 2025
ORDER
Johnson John, J.
The concurrent findings and order of eviction passed under
Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent
Control) Act, 1965 (‘the Act’ for short) by the Rent Control Court and
appellate authority are under challenge in this revision petition.
2. The revision petitioner contends that there is no landlord-
tenant relationship, in as much as the petition schedule building
collapsed even prior to the fling of the eviction petition. It is also
contended that there is no notice demanding arrears of rent, that the
need alleged is not bona fide, and that the revision petitioner is entitled
for the benefit of the first proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the
learned counsel for the respondents.
4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner argued that the
petition schedule building crumbled down in the heavy monsoon in 2011
:5:
R.C. Rev. No. 123 of 2025
2025:KER:42438
and the revision petitioner is residing at a separate space towards the
southern side of the property where the petition schedule building was
situated.
5. The petition schedule building originally belonged to one
Sulekha Beevi and after her death, it devolved to her brother, Abdul
Majeed, and on the death of Abdul Majeed, it devolved to the original
petitioners who filed the eviction petition. In a previous suit with respect
to the same subject matter, ie., in O.S. 594 of 2008, it was held that
there exists a landlord-tenant relationship between the parties.
6. Before the Rent Control Court, the denial of title and landlord-
tenant relationship was considered as a preliminary issue and as per the
order dated 19.12.2019, the Rent Control Court found that the denial of
title is not bona fide and that there exists a landlord-tenant relationship
between the parties. The said order was challenged in R.C.A No. 18 of
2019; but, the appellate authority confirmed the finding of the Rent
Control Court and the same was challenged in R.C.Rev. No. 83 of 2020
before this Court. But, this Court dismissed R.C.Rev. No. 83 of 2020
:6:
R.C. Rev. No. 123 of 2025
2025:KER:42438
confirming the findings of the Rent Control Court and the appellate
authority that the denial of title and landlord-tenant relationship is not
bona fide.
7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner cited the
decision of this Court in Sidharthan v. Ramadasan [1984 KHC 162]
and the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in
Vannattankandy Ibrayi v. Kunhabdulla Hajee [(2001) 1 SCC 564]
in support of the argument that where tenancy was exclusively for the
building or structure, it would stand extinguished, if the subject matter
of the tenancy were destroyed by natural calamity.
8. The learned counsel for the respondents cited the decisions of
the Honourable Supreme Court in T. Lakshmipathi v. P. Nithyananda
Reddy [(2003) 5 SCC 150] and Shaha Ratansi Khimji & Sons v.
Kumbhar Sons Hotel (P) Ltd., [(2014) 14 SCC 1] and argued that
building or structure and land are both normally the subject matter of
lease and even if the building or superstructure is destroyed, that would
not determine the lease, when the land which is the site of the building,
continues to exist.
:7:
R.C. Rev. No. 123 of 2025
2025:KER:42438
9. In Shaha Ratansi Khimji‘s case, a three-Judge Bench of the
Honourable Supreme Court analysed the conflicting views in the previous
two-Judge Bench decisions and overruled the decision rendered in
Vannattankandy Ibrayi‘s case holding that the view taken in the said
case that the rights stand extinguished as on the distinction of the
demise, for there is destruction of the superstructure and in its non-
existence, there is no subject matter, was by excluding the land out of
the concept of subject-matter. It was also held that in the said case, the
court failed to appreciate that there are two categories of subject-
matters combined in a singular capsule, which is the essence of the
provision under the Transfer of Property Act and not restricted to a
singular one, that is, the superstructure. In paragraph 24 of the said
decision, it was held thus:
“24. As we notice from the aforesaid analysis it is founded on an
interpretation of Section 108(B)(e) by assuming that when a building
or structure is leased out, it is the superstructure that is leased out in
exclusivity. As we perceive, the language employed in Section 108(B)
(e) does not allow such a construction. The singular exception that has
been carved out is the wrongful act or default on the part of the lessee
which results in the injury to the property that denies the benefit. In all
:8:
R.C. Rev. No. 123 of 20252025:KER:42438
other circumstances which find mention under Section 111 of the Act,
are the grounds for determination of the lease. This is the plainest
construction of the provision and there is no other room for adding to
or subtracting anything from it. Be it stated, Section 108 postulates the
rights and liabilities of lessor and lessee. If a right is not conferred by
the statute on the lessor for determination, except one exception which
is clearly stipulated there in Section 108(B)(e) by the legislature, it
would not be permissible for the court to add another ground of the
base or fulcrum of ethicality, difficulty or assumed supposition.”
10. Admittedly, the revision petitioner is residing in the property
and therefore, the contention that there is no landlord-tenant
relationship, for the reason that the building or the superstructure is
destroyed, is not legally sustainable. In the present case, it is relevant to
point out that the Rent Control Court considered the plea of denial of
title as a preliminary issue and against the concurrent findings of the
Rent Control Court and the Rent Control Appellate Authority that the
denial of title is not bona fide, RCR No. 83 of 2020 was filed before this
Court and as per the order dated 31.05.2022, this Court dismissed the
revision petition confirming the findings of the authorities below that the
denial of title is not bona fide. Therefore, in view of Section 15 of the
Act, the tenant cannot reagitate the said issue in this revision petition.
11. The Rent Control Court and the appellate authority found that
the landlord issued Exhibit A4 notice demanding arrears of rent from
December 2009 onwards and that Exhibits A4(c) and A4(d), postal
:9:
R.C. Rev. No. 123 of 2025
2025:KER:42438
acknowledgement cards, would show that the same was received by the
tenants.
12. The bona fide need set up by the landlords is for the
residential purpose of original petitioners 4 and 5 and the evidence of
PW1, the original 4th petitioner, shows that original petitioners 4 and 5
are widows and they have no permanent place of residence and they are
living with the assistance of others and both the authorities below
accepted the evidence of PW1 in this regard to record a finding that the
need alleged is bona fide. The authorities below also held that the tenant
is not entitled for the protection of the first proviso to Section 11(3) of
the Act, in as much as there is no evidence to prove that any other
building is available in the ownership or possession of petitioners 4 and 5
for their residential purpose.
13. It is well settled that while exercising the jurisdiction under
Section 20 of the Act, this Court cannot re appreciate the evidence on
record in order to come to a different conclusion on any factual issues,
unless the finding is either erroneous or perverse, as held by the
: 10 :
R.C. Rev. No. 123 of 2025
2025:KER:42438
Honourable Supreme Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v.
Dilbahar Singh [(2014) 9 SCC 78]. We find no illegality or
impropriety in the impugned orders of the Rent Control Court and the
appellate authority warranting interference in revision.
In the result, this revision petition is dismissed.
sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE,
JUDGE.
sd/-
JOHNSON JOHN,
JUDGE.
Rv