C.V. RAJENDRAN AND ANR. versus N.M. MUHAMMED KUNHI

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 390 · Decided: 13-09-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.S.M. QUADRI, S.N. VARIAVA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
C.V. RAJENDRAN AND ANR. 
v. 
N.M. MUHAMMED KUNHI 
SEPTEMBER 13, 2002 
B 
[SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND S.N. VARIAVA, JJ.] 
Kera/a Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965: 
s. 15(3)-Second eviction petition-Maintainability-Landlord filed 
C earlier petition for eviction of tenant on ground of bona fide requirement of 
son-Requirement found bona fide but eviction order not passed for want of 
alternative accommodation-Second eviction petition filed by landlord for his 
bona fide requirement-Rent controller declining relief holding that second 
eviction petition was barred by s. I 5(3)-Appellate authority remanded the 
D case to Rent Controller holding that the second petition was maintainab/e-
Order confirmed by District Judge-Thereafter Rent Controller allowed eviction 
petition-When matter taken to High Court by tenant High Court held that 
issue of maintainability of second eviction petition, having become final could 
not be re-agitated afresfi-!-It also held thats. 15 did not bar subsequent eviction 
petition -Held, sub-section (2) of s. 105 of C.P.C. deals with an order of 
E remand and provides that notwithstanding the provisions of sub-section (/), 
where any party aggrieved by an order of remand from which an appeal lies 
does not appeal therefrom, he shall thereafter be precluded from disputing its 
correctness-Here what is sought to be agitated is not really the order of 
remand but the order deciding a germane issue which was allowed to become 
F final at an earlier stage of the same suit-As the question whether s. 15 of the 
Act bars the present eviction petition, was decided against the appellants by 
the Appellate Authority at the earlier stage of suit and it was allowed to 
become final, it is not open to the appellants to re-agitate the same at the 
subsequent stage of the suit-Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-ss.105(2)-
s.//-Res judicata. 
G 
H 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5832 of 
2002. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 6.7.2002 of the Kerala High Court 
in C.R.P.No. 2147 of 1992. 
390 
C.V. RAJENDRAN v. N.M. MUHAMMED KUN HI 
391 
P.P. Rao, A. Raghunath, A.D. Sikri. for the Appellants. 
K. Sukumaran Ms. Karthika S.N.R. Shonker, Ms. Malini Pduval for the 
Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave is granted. 
The short point that arises for consideration in this appeal is : whether 
A 
B 
the order of remand passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority,. 
Payyannur, dated November 25, 1988, holding that the second eviction petition 
(RCP No.13/87) filed by the respondent against the appellants under sub- C 
section (3) of Section 11 of the Kerala Buildings (lease and Rent Control) 
Act, 1965 (for short, 'the Act") is not barred by Section 15 of the Act, can 
be permitted to be reagitated in proceeding arising from the order passed by 
the Rent Controller pursuant to the order of remand. 
The appellants are the tenants of the petition schedule building of which D 
the respondent is the landlord. In the first round of litigation between the 
parties for eviction of the appellants from the schedule building, it was held 
that the requirement of the son of the respondent was bona fide but eventually 
the order of eviction could not be passed on the ground that no alternative 
accommodation was available for the appellants in the locality. The respondent, E 
thereafter, initiated the proceedings for eviction of the appellants, out of 
which this appeal arises, on the ground of his bona fide requirement, The 
learned Rent Controller declined relief to the respondent on the ground that 
under Section 15(3) of the Act the eviction petition was not maintainable. On 
November 25, 1988 the Appellate Authority allowed the appeal of the 
respondent holding that the eviction petition was maintainable and remanded F 
the case to the Rent Controller for fresh disposal on merits in accordance 
with law which became final as that order was confirmed in RCRP No. 42/ 
89 by the District Judge, Thalassery, on December 3, 1990. After remand, the 
learned Rent Controller found that the need of the respondent was bona fide, 
and alternative accommodation in the area was available, so allowed the G 
eviction petition on September 25, 1991 which was confirmed by the Rent 
Control Appellate Authority, Thalassery, in Rent Control Appeal No. 193 of 
1991 on August 3, 1991, In Civil Revision Petition No. 2147 of 1992, filed 
by the appellants herein before the High Court of K

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.