LexSESHAMBAL (DEAD) THROUGH L.RS. versus M/S. CHELUR CORPORATION CHELUR BUILDING AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2010] 2 S.C.R. 960 A SESHAMBAL (DEAD) THROUGH L.RS. v. M/S. CHELUR CORPORATION CHELUR BUILDING AND ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 565 of 2005) B FEBRUARY 17, 2010 ,C ; D [MARKANDEY KATJU AND T.S. THAKUR, JJ.] Rent Control: Kera/a Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, · 1965 - s. 11 (3) - Eviction petition ..... On ground of bonafide personal requirement - Dismissed by Rent Controller as also the Appellate Authority - Order upheld by High. Court - Meanwhile the original owners died - Their LRs, i.e. three daughters sought eviction on .the basis of requirement pleaded by the original owners - Whether eviction proceedings could be continued by LRs of deceased-owners - Held: On facts, No - The limited requirement pleaded in the eviction petition by the original owners was their own E personal occupation and not occupation of their family members, dependant or otherwise - ·in. any event, the LRs of deceased-owners were all married and settled in their respective matrimonial homes in different cities and at different places - The deceased owners thus did not have any F dependant family member for whose P.ersonal occupation they could have sought eviction - On the death of original owners, their right to seek eviction on ground of personal occupation became extinct. Eviction suit - Dismissed by Rent Controller - ·Revision G petition - High Court affirmed the order of Rent Controller, but, noticing that the demised premises was large and located in a popular commercial area of the city, and also the fact that the rent had not been revised for number of years, it tentatively enhanced the rent - Held: The revision was not adequate - H 960 SESHAMBAL (DEAD) THROUGH L.RS. v. CHELUR 961 CORPORATION CHELUR BUILDING keeping in view the totality of the circumstances, rent further A revised by Supreme Court, albeit tentatively. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Suit - Subsequent development - Effect of - Held: If subsequent to the filing of the suit, certain developments take place that have a bearing 8 on the right to relief claimed by a party, such subsequent events cannot be shut out from consideration. The premises in dispute, located in the city of· Cochin, was let out to respondent no.1. The original owners of the premises filed petition before the Rent C Controller seeking eviction of respondent no.1-tenant on the ground that they required the same for their bonafide personal_ occupation within the meaning of Section 11 (3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The Rent Controller held that the owners had failed D to establish their bonafide requirement of the premises. The Appellate Authority affirmed the decision taken by the Rent Controller. Aggrieved, the owners filed revision petition before E the High Court, which dismissed the same. However, the High Court enhanced the rent of the premises to Rs.10,0001- p.m. Meanwhile the original owners passed away. Their LRs, i.e. three daughters sought eviction on the basis of requirement pleaded by the original owners. In appeal to this Court, dispute arose as to whether the proceedings instituted by the deceased-ow11ers of the demised property could be continued by their LRs. F The LRs of deceased-owners contended that it was G permissible.for them to continue t~e eviction proceedings and seek eviction of the tenant on the basis of the requirement pleaded by the erstwhile owners in the eviction petition filed by them; that the rights and obligations of the parties got crystallized as on the date H 962 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [201 OJ 2 S.C.R. A of the filing of the petition and that the subsequent development of the death of original owners was irrelevant to the maintainability or continuance of the eviction proceedings after the death of the original owners. B Disposing of the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. The eviction petition was filed in terms of Section 11 (3) of the Kera la Buildings (Lease and Rent· Control) Act, 1965. In the eviction petition the owners had C pleaded their own requirement for the premises to be occupied by them for residential as well as commercial purposes. The eviction petition was totally silent about the requirements of any member of the family of the owners-petitioners leave alone any member of their family D who was dependant upon them. That being so the parties went to trial before the Rent Controller on the basis of the case pleaded in the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.