Pleadings Regarding Denial Of Title Or Claim For Permanent Tenancy Must Be Clear, Specific, And Unequivocal: Kerala HC
The Kerala High Court has held that pleadings regarding the denial of title or the claim for permanent tenancy must be clear, specific, and unequivocal.
The Court was considering Rent Control Revision Petition against eviction order passed by Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965.
The division-bench of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice P. Krishna Kumar observed, "The pleadings regarding the denial of title or the claim for permanent tenancy must be clear, specific, and unequivocal, without which the Rent Control Court cannot assess whether the said contention was raised in good faith or was merely a pretext for eviction."
The Petitioner was represented by Advocate T. Kabil Chandran.
The landlord-respondent purchased the tenanted premises on 04/03/1995. The predecessor-in-interest of the tenants-revision petitioners was inducted into the said building by the prior owner as his tenant, and the tenancy continued despite the death of the original tenant. The landlord requires the vacant possession of the tenanted building for the bona fide occupation of his dependent son. The tenants objected to the petition for eviction,contending that the need projected was not genuine.
Counsel for the Petitioners forcefully submitted that the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners was a commercial tenant and thus the petitioners are entitled to get protection under Section 106 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. He argued that there was a specific contention in the written objection that the original tenancy was commenced on 18/08/1961 in between the predecessors of both sides and the original tenant had reconstructed the petition scheduled building by using his own money with the consent of the prior owner for conducting business in Pooja articles.
It was further argued that the matter should have been taken out of the precincts of the Rent Control Court considering the second proviso to section 11(1) of the Act, in the light of the pleadings.
The Court rejected the contentions for the apparent reason that the revision petitioners failed to plead the claim of permanent tenancy in specific and explicit terms. The Court stressed that such pleadings should have been clear, specific, and unequivocal
"Although the strict rules of pleadings may not apply with full force to rent control proceedings, when the statute imposes a duty on the court to examine the genuineness of the claim before making a crucial decision, the party who wishes to invoke the said remedy must plead it with certainty and particularity," the Court observed.
The Revision Petition was accordingly dismissed.
Cause Title: Maya M T vs. Nadukkandy P.C. Ashraf (2024:KER:91929)
Click here to read/ download Order:
