LexNALAKATH SAINUDDIN versus KOORIKADAN SULAIMAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
NALAKATH SAINUDDIN A v. KOORIKADAN SULAIMAN JULY 8, 2002 [R.C. LAHOTI AND B.N. AGRAWAL, JJ.] B Rent Control and Eviction : , Kera/a Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, I965. c Section 20-Revisional jurisdiction of High Court-Eviction order passed on one of the several grounds-Tenant filing revision-Landlord supporting eviction order by disputing correc~ness of finding adverse to him on another ground for eviction-High Court upholding availability of such ground- Justification of-Held, High Court is justified in interfering with and reversing D part of order adverse to landlord. Section I I (8)-Eviction-Ground of additional accommodation for ' personal use-Respondent occupying part of the building ns sub-tenant and .> appellant as tenant-Later respondent purchasing interest of owner in the entire building and filing application for eviction of tenant-Rent Court E negating availability of ground of eviction, appellate authority graming the same-High Court negating the ground-On appeal, held applicability of Section I l (8) attracted since on purchase of interest of owner by respondent in the part of the premises held by him as sub tenant results in merger wiping out the sub tenancy and converting the nature of occupation of respondent p into that of owner-Doctrine of merger. Words and Phrases: Expression 'any aggrieved party '-Meaning of in the context of Section 20(1) of the Kera/a Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. G A shop with openings on two sides was assigned two door numbers by the local authority. Owner of the property let out th'e property to appellant, tenancy being single tenancy for two doors. Appellant then sublet one of the doors to respondent. Thereafter, respondent purchased the entire property from the original owners. Respondent then filed an H .. 'r l 2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002) SUPP. l S.C.R. A application for eviction of appellant-tenant under Sections 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. Rent Control Court ordered eviction under Section 11(2)(b) but refused under Section 11 (8) and 11 (3) of the Act. Parties filed appeals. Appellate authority ordered eviction under Section 11(8) in addition to Section B 11(2)(b) and upheld the dismissal of claim for eviction under Section 11(3). Aggrieved, appellant-tenant filed revision under Section 20 of the Act. However, no revision was filed by respondent-landlord. High Court held that in addition to ground under Section 11(2)(b) eviction was sustainable c under Section 11(3) but refused eviction under Section 11(8) of the Act. ·. Hence the present cross appeals. The questions which arose for consideration in these cross appeals are when an order for eviction is passed on one of the several grounds urged by the landlord, can the respondent-landlord in a revision filed by tenant under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 support the order for eviction by disputing the correctness of D finding adverse to him, on another ground for eviction and urge before the revisional court to uphold the availability of such ground so as to sustain the order for eviction and whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, High Court was justified in holding non- availability of ground for eviction under Section 11(8) of the Act. In appeal E before this Court, appellant-tenant submitted that the appellate authority had negated availability of ground under Section 11(3) of the Act and respondent-landlord did not file any revision to High Court under Section 20 of the Act challenging the order of the appellate authority, the same having achieved a finality, High Court did not have jurisdiction to pass an eviction order under Section 11(3) of the Act once the ground under F Section 11(8) was also negated by High Court and ground under Section 11(8) of the Act was not available to the respondent-landlord, as he was holding one of the doors of the shop as sub-tenant while both the doors of the shop were held by the appellant-tenant under a single tenancy, in spite of purchase by the respondent-landlord from the previous owner the G appellant-tenant remains a tenant in one door and sub-tenancy of the respondent-landlord over other door did not come to an end by applying the doctrine of merger. Respondent-landlord contended that a landlord in his capacity as respondent, in a revision before the Hig
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.