[Kerala Buildings Lease & Rent Control Act] Party Suffering Adverse Order On Germane Issue As To Title Dispute Is Not Permitted To Re-Agitate Same: High Court

While explaining the meaning of Section 15 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act for re-agitating the pre-decided cases, the Kerala High Court held that the finding rendered on the plea of denial of title taken by the tenant in earlier proceedings would bind the petitioner and she is precluded from re-agitating the same issue.

Referring to the decision of the Apex Court in C.V. Rajendran v. N.M. Muhammed Kunhi [(2002) 7 SCC 447], the High Court clarified that the findings rendered in earlier proceedings or in earlier stages of the same proceedings on issues arising between the parties to a proceeding under the KBLRC Act, which are germane for consideration, cannot be re-agitated by the parties.

A Division Bench of Justice P. B. Suresh Kumar and Justice P. G. Ajithkumar observed that “Section 15 of the Act does not appear to be a provision which enables a party to a proceeding under the Act who suffered an adverse order on an issue in an earlier proceeding or at an earlier stage of the same proceedings, to re-agitate the said issue”.

“The spirit of Section 15 of the Act which is founded on a principle of issue estoppel, is that a party who suffered an adverse order on a germane issue shall not be permitted to re-agitate the same”, added the Bench.

Advocate P.C Haridas appeared for the Petitioner whereas None appeared for the Respondent.

The brief facts of the case were that the petitioner was arrayed as the tenant by the respondents under Sections 11(2)(b), 11(3), and 11(7) of the Kerala Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act (the Act). The landlord instituted a proceeding against the petitioner. The subject matter of the proceeding was a shop room attached to a temple. The petitioner denied the title of the landlord and contended that the eviction petition is, therefore, not maintainable. The Rent Control Court held that the plea was not bona fide and that the eviction petition was maintainable. The petitioner had not challenged the said order. The eviction petition was later tried and dismissed on merits. The landlord instituted other proceedings after that for eviction of the petitioner under Sections 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(7) of the Act. But the Rent Control Court rejected the plea by res judicata. The petitioner though challenged the said order the same was dismissed by the Appellate Authority. The Petitioner challenged the order of the Appellate Authority. There was a delay of 1160 days in filing the said appeal and the petitioner has therefore preferred an application to condone the said delay as well. The Appellate Authority refused to condone the delay and dismissed the petitioner’s plea. Hence, the Petitioner approached the Division Bench.

After considering the submission, the Bench noted that since the petitioner has not adopted the said course, it can be very much inferred that the petitioner has consciously decided not to challenge the said order.

Referring to the decision in the case of Govindan v. Subaida Beevi [1997 (1) KLT 910], the Bench reiterated that a question which is agitated by a party to a proceeding under the Act at one stage of the proceedings cannot be re-agitated at a later stage of the proceedings.

The Bench stated that the landlord cannot re-agitate in the subsequent proceedings the issue relating to the plea of denial of title taken by the tenant who suffered an adverse order in the earlier proceedings.

Referring to the case of Vannatham Veettil Moidu v. Vannatham Veettil Yoonus [2022 (6) KLT OnLine 1078], the Bench reiterated that “the tenant in a proceeding under the Act who suffered an adverse order on the plea of denial of title of the landlord which was tried as a preliminary issue, if it becomes final, cannot re-agitate the said issue in appeal or revision preferred against the subsequent order granting eviction.”

On finding rendered on the plea of denial of title taken by the tenant would bind the petitioner and she is precluded from re-agitating the issue, the High Court dismissed the revision petition.

Cause Title: Mallika v. Sree Mutharamman Temple Trust and Anr. [Neutral Citation: 2023/KER/58938]

Click here to read/download the Order