DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

VISAKHAPATNAM

PROJECT ON
THE KERALA BUILDING (LEASE AND RENT CONTROL) ACT, 1965
SUBJECT
TRANSFER OF PROPERTY

SUBMITTED TO
MR. P.JOGI NAIDU
PROJECT SUBMITTED WITH ROLL NO., SEMESTER AND SECTION
AKHIL H KRISHNAN
2018005
Fourth semester
Section A
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT:

I am highly indebted to my Hon’ble Transfer of Proparties faculty, Mr. P.Jogi Naidu, for
giving me a wonderful opportunity to work on the topic: “The Kerala Building (Lease and
Rent Control) Act, 1965”, and it is because of his excellent knowledge, experience and
guidance, this project is made with great interest and effort. I would also take this as an
opportunity to thank my parents for their support at all times. I have no words to express my
gratitude to each and every person who has guided and suggested me while conducting my
research work.
 INTRODUCTION
WHAT IS RENT CONTROL?
The practice of imposing a legal maximum (rent ceiling) upon the rent in a particular housing
market, below the equilibrium rent is called rent control. If this maximum is above that
market’s equilibrium rent (different rental housing markets may have different equilibrium
rents), then the control is null and void. But if the rent is set at a level below the equilibrium
rent, it will necessarily lead to a situation of excess demand or shortage. In a free market,
prices (here, rents) would rise automatically filling the gap between the demand and the
supply. But rent controls prevent prices from rising up to the equilibrium level and thus,
alternative rationing mechanisms such as black and uncontrolled markets evolve.
Rent controls were introduced in the early 1900s in the United States and some other parts of
the world to check uninhibited rent increases and tenant eviction during wartime housing
emergencies. After World War II, there was a sudden increase in the demand for rentable
housing from soldiers returning home. With industrialization and corresponding urbanization,
there was an increase in rural-urban migrations. To prevent rents from rising too much owing
to this spurt in demand, Rent Control Acts (RCAs), under various names were introduced in
many countries. These were called the first-generation rent controls. Those introduced later
were called the second-generation rent controls or soft rent controls, because they provided
for some leeway in rent increases and tenant landlord relationship. The first rent control
legislation in India was introduced immediately after the First World War in Bombay in
1918. It was followed by similar legislations for Calcutta and Rangoon in 1920. By the end of
the Second World War almost all the major cities and towns in the countries were covered by
rent control measures. All these acts, born out of the inflationary aftermath of the First World
War, were conceived as purely temporary measures to provide relief to the tenants against the
demand of exorbitant rent and indiscriminate eviction by the landlords due to scarcity of
houses in the urban areas. As in other parts of the globe, the rent control laws applicable in
various states in India are different with respect to various aspects and thus, a holistic
analysis, though attempted here, is difficult.
LEGAL ASPECTS OF RENT CONTROL
Under the Indian Constitution, housing (provision of) is a state subject. Thus, the enactment
and enforcement of rent control laws is the responsibility of the individual states. While this
is in accordance with the federal nature of the Indian Republic, it makes a comparative
analysis of the rent control laws that much more difficult. The common thread running
through almost all rent control Acts and legislations is that they are intended to serve two
purposes:
1. To protect the tenant from eviction from the house where he is living except for defined
reasons and on defined conditions; and
2. To protect him from having to pay more than a fair/standard rent.
But most acts also confer upon the landlord the right to evict a tenant who is guilty of certain
specified acts and also when the landlord requires the house for his own personal occupation.
There are various grounds under which a landlord can evict a tenant. The most common of
these are listed below. There are also some states, where one or more of the provisions given
below don’t apply.
1. Breach of condition of tenancy
2. Subletting
3. Default in payment of rent for specified period
4. Requirement of building for own occupation
5. Material deterioration in the condition of the building
The landlord is required to specify the exact provision of the relevant act under which he is
seeking the eviction of the tenant, to enable the tenant to take any remedial action provided in
the act. The whole idea of a rent control act is to control and regulate eviction of tenants and
not to stop it altogether.
Exemptions have been granted to various sections of the Rental Housing Market (henceforth,
also referred to as RHM) under many of the Rent Control Acts (henceforth, also referred to as
RCAs):
• Properties belonging to the government
• Any tenancy created by a grant from the Government in respect of the premises taken on
lease or requisitioned, by the Government.
• Newly constructed properties for a period of ten years (in Delhi) from the date of
construction. This period may vary from state to state.
• Any premises, residential or other, whose monthly rent exceeds three thousand and five
hundred rupees (in Delhi). The amount may vary from state to state.
One bone of contention over the years has been the feature of most Rent Control Acts to
grant exemptions to the properties owned by the government. While some say that this is a
discriminatory practice, their argument is dismissed by the assertion that the government is
not expected to raise rents or eject tenants in the pursuit of higher revenues. Thus tenants of
government owned properties are in no need of protection.

THE KERALA BUILDING (LEASE AND RENT CONTROL) ACT, 1965

The Kerala Building (Lease And Rent Control) Act, 1965, is An Act regulate the leasing of
buildings and to control the rent of such buildings in the State of Kerala. The act came in to
force on the first day of April 1965. The above said Act came in to force after the
Amendment in the The Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1959.
WHO IS A TENANT?
Section 2(6) of the Kerala Building (Lease And Rent Control) Act, 1965 (The Act) defines
the term ‘Tenant’. A tenant is any person whom or on whose account rent is payable for a
building and includes heir of the deceased tenant. Hence a tenancy of building is heritable.
That is if any of the tenant is deceased his legal heir can be considered as a tenant. The death
of a tenant does not take away the rights of their legal heirs on the property under tenancy.
The Act envisages two types of tenants:
1. A tenant per se and
2. A statutory tenant.

A tenant per se is any tenant who is instituted in a building by an agreement or otherwise, and
the rent is paid out of his pocket or property and includes the heir/ heirs of the deceased
tenant. A statutory tenant, on the other hand, is a tenant who is continuing in possession even
after the termination of the tenancy in his favour. 
Statutory tenant itself can be classified into two.

a) Tenant by holding over.

b) Tenant at sufferance.

If after the determination of the tenancy, the tenant continues in possession of the leased
premises with the assent of the landlord, he is popularly known as ‘tenant by holding over’
and if such continual in possession is without the assent of the landlord, he is a ‘tenant at
sufferance’.

The following category are specifically excluded from the purview of tenants.

(a) A kudikidappukaran, as defined in Kerala Land Reforms Act.

According to Section 2 (25) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 – A ‘Kudikidappukaran’
means a person who has neither a homestead nor any land exceeding in extent three cents in
any city or major municipality or five cents in any other municipality or ten cents in any
panchayat area or township, in possession either as owner or as tenant, on which he could
erect a homestead and -

(a) who has been permitted with or without an obligation to pay rent by a person in
lawful possession of any land to have the use and occupation of a portion of such
land for the purpose of erecting a homestead; or

(b) who has been permitted by a person in lawful possession of any land to occupy,
with or without an obligation to pay rent, a hut belonging to such person and
situate in the said land; and "kudikidappu" means the land and the homestead or
the hut so permitted to be erected or occupied together with the easements
attached thereto.

(b) A person placed in occupation of a building by its tenant.

(c) A person to whom collection of rents or fees in public market, cart stand or slaughter
house or of rents for shops has been farmed out or leased by a Municipal Council, Municipal
Corporation, Township committee or Panchayat.

RIGHTS OF TENANT

A. RIGHT TO FAIR RENT

The tenant is liable to pay only the fair rent. The fair rent shall be determined by the Rent
Control Court on application made by the tenant or the landlord as the case may be. Though
the provisions concerning fair rent have been declared unconstitutional by the court as
violative of the right to business of the landlord under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution ,
the same has not been taken away in principle and the rent fixed by the landlord shall not by
unreasonable.

B. RIGHT AGAINST ARBITRARY EVICTION

1. The tenant shall not be evicted except under the grounds mentioned in S. 11 of the Act.

2. Any order of eviction on the ground of arrears of rent shall not be executed except after the
expiry of one month from the order. The court shall vacate the order if the tenant deposits the
arrears of rent with the cost of proceedings within the said period. In OusephMathaiv. Abdul
Khadir , the Supreme Court held that the order under S. 11 (2) becomes final on the expiry of
the time granted for deposit of arrears of rent bythe courts; the grant of stay does not amount
to automatic extension of the statutory protection.

3. Where landlord seeks to evict the tenant on the ground of bona fide need for his own
occupation of the family members, the Court shall not give a direction to the tenant to put the
landlord in possession, if the livelihood of the tenant is solely dependent on the income
derived from any trade or business carried on in that building and there is no other suitable
available in the locality. However, the protection son granted is limited to the tenants who are
natural persons or group of persons in contrast to legal entities like companies and statutory
bodies. In other words, ‘his livelihood’ can have reference only to natural persons and not to
inanimate lifeless legal entities like cooperative societies. A doctor running a nursing home is
carrying on a ‘business’ within the meaning of ‘trade or business’.

4. Where tenancy is for an agreed period, the landlord shall not be entitled to tender an
application for eviction to the Rent Control Court before the expiry of such period.

5. No tenant shall be evicted on the ground of additional accommodation for personal use of
the landlord where the hardship of the tenant outweighs the advantages of the landlord.

6. Where a tenant is evicted on the ground of bonafideneed for reconstruction, and having
evicted the tenant, the landlord willfully neglected to reconstruction the building within such
time fixed or extended by the Rent Control Court, the Court may impose a fine of Rs. 500/-.
Upon failure of the landlord, the court may issue further directions regarding the
reconstruction and may even put back the tenant in possession in appropriate cases or award
the evicted tenant damages equivalent to the excess rent he has to pay for another building
that he is occupying in consequence of the eviction.
The tenant so evicted shall have the first option to have the reconstructed building allotted to
him with the liability to pay the fair rent. The wide powers under the proviso to S. 11 (4) (iv)
include the powers even to permit the affected tenant, in appropriate cases to carry out the
reconstruction if the landlord persists his unreasonable refusal to complete reconstruction.

C. SPECIAL PROTECTION TO IDENTIFIED TENANTS

The Act envisages special protection to certain identified tenants based on the nature of
employment or profession.

(a) No order of eviction shall be passed against a tenant who is engaged in any
employment or any class of employment notified by the Government as an essential
service unless the landlord is himself engaged in any employment or class of
employment which has been so notified and the landlord requires the building for his
own occupation. It has been rightly held by K.K. Mathew, J. in Balanv. Gopalan Nair
that a notification issued by the Government of Kerala declaring that the following
tenants shall be deemed to be engaged in essential service for the purposes of the said
section is not violative of the Constitution, and therefore valid.

(b) No order of eviction shall be passed in respect of any building which has been let for
use as a recognised educational institution. However, no such protection can be
thereby claimed where the institution in which the courses are conducted is
unrecognized even if certain courses were recognized.

No order of eviction shall be passed in respect of any building which has been let for use as a
recognised educational institution. However, no such protection can be thereby claimed
where the institution in which the courses are conducted is unrecognized even if certain
courses were recognized.

(a) where the landlord has been living in aplace outside the city, town or village in which the
building is situated for a period of not less than five yearsbefore he makes an application to
the Rent Control Court for being put in possession of the building, and

(b) requires the building bona fide for his own permanent residence or for the permanent
residence of anymember of his family or

(c) the landlord is in dire need of a place for residence and has none of his own.

D. RIGHT OF RESTORATION

Where an eviction was effected by the landlord for his own use, the tenant can seek a
restoration of possession,

(a) If the landlord does not occupy it without reasonable cause within one month of the date
of obtaining possession, or

(b) Having so occupied it, vacates it without reasonable cause within six months of such date.

But when the tenant fails without reasonable cause to make an application for restoration of
possession within one month since the right accrued, then the procedure under S.4 relating to
notice of vacancy to the Accommodation Controller shall apply.
 D. RIGHT NOT TO BE INTERFERED WITH THE AMENITIES

The tenant has a right to not to be interfered with the amenities enjoyed by him. If any
landlord cut off or withhold the amenities enjoyed by the tenant with a view to compel him to
vacate the building or to pay an enhanced rent or without just and reasonable cause, to the
satisfaction of the Accommodation Controller, the Accommodation Controller may pass such
orders directing the landlord to restore the amenities and to pay compensation not exceeding
Rs. 50/-. The provision concerning compensation requires revision.

E. RIGHT TO PERIODICAL MAINTENANCE

It shall be the duty of the landlord to attend to the periodical maintenance and necessary
repairs of the building. If the landlord fails to attend to such maintenance or repairs to the
building and amenities within reasonable time, the Accommodation Controller may direct on
application by the tenant that such maintenance and repairs be attended by the tenant. The
charges and the costs incurred may be deducted from the rent payable at an interest of 6%
p.a.

F. FRIVOLOUS PETITION

Where an application for eviction made by the landlord is frivolous or vexatious, the tenant
shall be entitled to compensation. However, this provision has now become obsolete since the
maximum compensation to be paid by the landlord to the tenant as per the statute is Rs.
50/-.The compensation payable should be augmented in tune with the changing times in
accordance with the principle of compensatory costs under S. 35A and S.95 of CPC.

DUTIES OF TENANTS

A. DUTY TO ISSUE NOTICE OF VACANCY

A tenant shall within 15 days of his vacating the building occupied by him, shall give a notice
of it in writing to the Accommodation Controller.If the tenant puts another person in
occupation of a building and does not reoccupy it within a period of three months, the
tenancy is deemed to be terminated. The tenant is duty-bound to give the notice of such
termination to the Accommodation Controller within 15 days of such termination. However,
the tenant may, before the expiry three months, apply the Accommodation Controller
reoccupy the building within a period of six months, and if such permission is granted, the
tenancy may continue.

Any person contravening the aforementioned provision shall be punishable with fine which
may extend to Rs. 2000 and in default to simple imprisonment which may extend to two
weeks.

B. DUTY TO INFORM THE PARTICULARS OF THE BUILDING

Every landlord and every tenant shall be bound to furnish to the Accommodation Controller,
the Rent Control Court or any person authorized by it in that behalf, such particulars in
respect of the building as may be prescribed under the Act. The particulars to be furnished are
enumerated under S. 27 are enumerated in Rule 12 of the Kerala Buildings, Lease and Rent
Control Rules, 1979.

C. DUTY NOT TO SUBLET WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE LANDLORD

The tenant shall not, without the consent of the landlord, transfer his right under the lease or
sublet the entire building or any portion thereof if the lease does not confer on him any right
to do so. The consent of the landlord should preferably in writing. Mere silence, inaction or
lack of initiative on the part of the landlord in the absence of any positive action would not
amount to an implied consent.

D. DUTY NOT TO DESTROY OR TO REDUCE THE UTILITY OF THE BUILDING

The tenant shall not use the building in such manner as to destroy or reduce its value or utility
materially and permanently. However, effecting minor alterations without affecting the value
or utility of the building shall not bea ground for eviction under S. 11 (4) (ii).

The types of constructions to which the Act applies are Residential, Non-residential includes
gardens, grounds, garages and outhouses, if any and also any furniture and fittings supplied
by the landlord. This does not include rooms in hotels and boarding houses. This act applies
to the whole state of Kerala. The other State Act provides some exceptions on the basis of
Rent/Income of the tenant, Ownership, Date of Construction. These exceptions are not
available under the relevant act in discussion.

The Act provides with some rights and duties for the Landlords. Section 4(1)(a) of the Act
talks about ‘Notice of Vacancy’. It states, Every landlord may within fifteen days before
completion and shall, within fifteen days after the construction or re-construction of a
building intended to be let out or after a buildings become vacant by his ceasing to occupy it,
or by the Government or any other competent authority, give notice of the availability or
vacancy in writing to the Accommodation Controller.

DETERMINATION OF FAIR RENT

Section 5 of the Act about determination of fair rent. The procedure for the same is explained
in sub clause (1) of the section. It states that “The Rent Control Court shall, on application of
the tenant or landlord of a building, fix the fair rent for such building after holding such
enquiry as it thinks fit.”
In fixing the fair rent the court shall take into consideration the property tax or house tax
fined for the building at the time of letting in the property tax register or house tax register of
the local authority within whose area the building is situated. Provided that, any residential
building, or any non-residential building, excepting a building to which fittings have been
affixed or in which machinery have been installed and such fittings or machinery have been
excluded. the fair rent fixed may in proper cases be lower than, but shall in no case exceed by
more than fifteen per cent, the monthly rent on the basis of which the property tax or house
tax for the building, prevailing two years immediately before the date of application, was
fixed, or, if the building was not assessed to property tax or house tax before the said period
of two years, the monthly rent on the basis of which the property tax or house tax prevailing
immediately before the date of application was fixed.
If there is no property tax or house tax fixed for the building or if it is not based on a rental
basis or if the building is situated in an area which is not a City, Municipality, Panchayat or in
any other local authority, the fair rent shall be fixed after taking into consideration the
prevailing rates of rent in the locality for similar accommodation in similar circumstances
during the twelve months preceding the letting.
In case the allotment of the building is made by the Accommodation Controller, he may,
provisionally fix the fair rent for the building and the Rent Control Court may, on application
by an aggrieved party modify the fair rent so fixed. In case the allotment of the building is
made by the Accommodation Controller, he may, provisionally fix the fair rent for the
building and the Rent Control Court may, on application by an aggrieved party modify the
fair rent so fixed.

CASE LAWS

ANTHONY VS KC ITTOOP AND SONS AND OTHERS

FACTS
The building which is the subject matter of this litigation is described as a shed which
originally belonged to a family the senior member of which inducted the appellant in
possession thereof as per a lease deed dated 4.1.1974 which was ostensibly meant for a
period of five years. The monthly rent of the building has been fixed at Rs.140/-. Appellant
paid rent of the building at the said rate till October 1974. Sometime during this period
ownership of the building happened to be allotted to a female member of the family (Devaki)
as per a partition effected between its members. Thereafter rent of the building was paid by
the appellant to the aforesaid Devaki. Subsequently ownership of the building was transferred
by Devaki to the respondent who filed the suit as plaintiff (for the sake of convenience
respondent can be referred to as the plaintiff). The trial court decreed the suit by repelling the
contention of the appellant that the suit was not maintainable as he is protected from eviction
under the provisions of the Rent Act. The trial court found that the appellant is not a tenant as
the lease was void on account of non-registration of the lease-deed. In the first appeal filed by
the appellant a District Judge held that in spite of non- registration of the instrument there
was a valid tenancy of the building and hence appellant could not be evicted except in
accordance with the provisions of the Rent Act.
In a second appeal filed by the respondent a single judge of the High Court of Kerala set
aside the judgment of the District Court and remanded the first appeal to that court by holding
that the plaintiff was inducted into possession under a void lease and hence the court should
consider whether, independent of this lease the defendant was in possession as a lessee from
month to month. Learned single judge pointed out that since it is a question of fact the same
has to be decided on the evidence on record. After the remand the District Court entered upon
a finding that despite the defect of non-registration of the instrument the facts and
circumstances of this case and the evidence discussed above could clearly show that the
parties intended to create a lease. The District Judge further held that appellant is the tenant
as defined in the Rent Act and hence the plaintiff is not entitled to a decree in this case and
his remedy is to apply before the Rent Control Court.
When the matter went up to the High Court again in a second appeal a learned single judge
did not agree with the approach made by the District Judge after remand and the following
observations, inter alia, have been made by the High Court:
It has to be noted that if the conclusion of this court on the earlier occasion were that payment
and acceptance of rent pursuant to the void contract itself would bring about the relationship
of landlord and tenant between the parties protected under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and
Rent Control) Act this court would have certainly dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff by
so finding and would not have remanded the appeal to the lower appellate court in the manner
in which it was done. The lower appellate court has ignored this aspect while purporting to
record a finding that the first defendant would be a tenant protected by the Kerala Buildings
(Lease and Rent Control) Act even if he had paid rent only under the void lease. The said
approach by the appellate court appears to me to be totally unsustainable. I am therefore
constrained to set aside the finding of the lower appellate court that the first defendant is a
tenant protected by the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. I hold that the first
defendant has not proved that independent of the void lease, a relationship of landlord and
tenant has come into existence between the parties. In view of this finding, the plaintiffs will
be entitled to a decree for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property.
ISSUE
Whether the suit building is held by the appellant under a lease or not?
OBSERVATION
The court relayed on the definition of Tenant, Land lord, and Building under the The Kerala
Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The word tenant is defined in Section 2(6) of
the Rent Act as any person by whom or on whose account rent is payable for a building.
Landlord is defined as including the person who is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent
of a building. Now the definition of building must be booked into. In clause (i) it is defined as
any building or hut or part of a building or hut, let or to be let separately for residential or
non-residential purposes´ In the above context the word let has only one meaning and that is
to demise on lease.
The above three definitions unmistakably point to the necessity for a building to be covered
by a lease under law in order to bring such building within the purview of the Rent Act. If
there is no lease of a building the Rent Act has no application. Thus what is important now is
to know whether there has been a lease of the building in question. If the appellant is a lessee
of the building, it is not disputed before us that jurisdiction of the civil court would stand
evacuated and the plaintiff has to approach the Rent Control Court if he is desirous of getting
an order of eviction on any one of the grounds recognised in the Rent Act.
The lease-deed relied on by the plaintiff was intended to be operative for a period of five
years. It is an unregistered instrument. Hence such an instrument cannot create a lease on
account of three pronged statutory inhibitions. The first interdict is contained in the first
paragraph of Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for short the TP Act ). The
second inhibition can be discerned from Section 17(1) of the Registration Act 1908. The third
interdict is contained in Section 49 of the Registration Act which speaks about the fatal
consequence of non-compliance of Section 17 thereof.
But the above finding does not exhaust the scope of the issue whether appellant is a lessee of
the building. A lease of immovable property is defined in Section 105 of the TP Act. A
transfer of a right to enjoy a property in consideration of a price paid or promised to be
rendered periodically or on specified occasions is the basic fabric for a valid lease. The
provision says that such a transfer can be made expressly or by implication. Once there is
such a transfer of right to enjoy the property a lease stands created. What is mentioned in the
three paragraphs of the first part of Section 107 of the TP Act are only the different modes of
how leases are created.
Here, parties clearly intended to create a lease though the document which they executed had
not gone into the processes of registration. That lacuna had affected the validity of the
document, but what had happened between the parties in respect of the property became a
reality. Non registration of the document had caused only two consequences. One is that no
lease exceeding one year was created. Second is that the instrument became useless so far as
creation of the lease is concerned. Nonetheless the presumption that a lease not exceeding
one year stood created by conduct of parties remains un-rebutted.
HELD
Suit dismissed without prejudice to the right of the respondent to move under the provision of
the Rent Act.

MUKRI GOPALAN v. CHEPPILAT PUTHANPURAYIL ABOOBACKER

FACTS
The appellant is a tenant occupying the suit premises belonging to respondent-landlord. The
respondent filed Rent Control Petition before the Rent Control Court, Kannur, Kerala State,
seeking eviction of the appellant-tenant under Section 11(2) (a) (b) and Section 11(3) of the
Rent Act on the grounds of default in payment of rent and bonafide need for the purpose of
conducting grocery shop for his son, plaintiff no. 2. The Rent Control Court exercising its
power under Section 11 of the Rent Act, passed an order for possession against the appellant
on 28th October, 1993. The appellant applied for certified copy of the said order on 29.10.93.
He obtained certified copy of the order on 23.11.93. It is the case of the appellant that he
entrusted on 4.12.93 all the relevant papers to his counsel for filing appeal. His counsel called
him in the next following week for signing vakalatnama and for completing other formalities
relating to filing of appeal. It is the further case of the appellant that he suffered paralytic
attack on 5.12.93 and was bed ridden until 27.12.93. On 28.12.93 he came to know for the
first time from his counsel that the time for filing appeal had elapsed. It may be noted at this
stage that as per Section 18(1) (b) of the Rent Act an appeal has to be filed within thirty days
from the date of order of Rent Control Court. In computing thirty days, the time taken to
obtain a certified copy of the order appealed against has to be excluded. Ultimately the appeal
was filed by the appellant on 31.12.93 before the appellate authority, namely, District Judge
under Section 18 of the Act. The said appeal was also accompanied by interlocutory appeal
for condonation of delay supported by the affidavit of the appellant. The appellate authority
by its order dated 11th January, 1994 dismissed the appeal as barred by time. The appellate
authority took the view that being not a court but a persona designata it has no power to
condone the delay in filing appeal by invoking the provisions contained in Section 5 of the
Limitation Act, 1963. As noted earlier the moved by the appellant and the case was in hands
of the Supreme court.
ISSUES
Whether the appellate authority constituted under Section 18 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease
and Rent Control) Act, 1965 has power to condone the delay in the filing of appeal before it
under the said section?
OBSERVATION
The court considered the relevant statutory provisions. The Rent Act is enacted to regulate
the leasing of buildings and to control the rent of buildings in the State of Kerala. Section
2(5) defines `Rent Control Court' to mean the court constituted under Section 3. Section 3 of
the Rent Act provides that the Government may by notification appoint a person who is or is
qualified to be appointed a Munsiff, to be the Rent Control Court for such local areas. Section
5 of the Act deals with the dertermination of fair rent on application of the tenant or landlord
to the Rent Control Court. Section 11 deals with the grounds on which an application can be
made to the Rent Control Court by landlord for evicting his or her tenant. Proviso of Section
11 lays down that where the tenant denies the title of the landlord or claims right of
permanent tenancy, the Rent Control Court shall decide whether the denial or claim is bona
fide and if it records a finding to that effect, the landlord shall be entitled to sue for eviction
of the tenant in a Civil Court and such court may pass a decree for eviction on any of the
grounds mentioned in this Section, notwithstanding that the Court finds such denial does not
involve forfeiture of the lease or that the claim is unfounded. Section 14 deals with execution
of orders passed by Rent Control Court. It provides that such orders after the expiry of the
time allowed therein be executed by the Munsiff or if there are more than one Munsiff, by the
Principal Munsiff having original jurisdiction over the area in which the building is situated
as if it were a decree passed by him provided that an order passed in execution under this
section shall not be subject to an appeal but shall be subject to revision by the court to which
appeals ordinarily lie against the decisions of the said Munsiff. Section 16 lays down that the
orders of Rent Control Court shall be pronounced in the open court on the day on which the
case is finally heard, or on some future day of which due notice shall be given to the parties.
Next relevant provision is found in Section 18 dealing with appeals. As the controversy
centres round the powers of the appellate authority under Section 18 it will be useful to
extract the said Section in extensio at this stage.
The appellants cited the case of Jokkim Fernandez Vs. Amina Kunhi Umma and contended
that the majority view of Kerala High Court in the case to the effect that Section 29(2) of the
Limitation Act cannot apply to the proceeding before the appellate authority under Section 18
of the Rent Act was not correct and that the appellate authority had full powers under Section
29(2) of the Limitation Act to consider on merits the question of condonation of delay in
filing appeal as per Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The learned counsel for respondent-
landlord on the other hand supported the decision rendered by the High Court. But this was
turned down by the court.
The court viewed that, appellate authority constituted under Section 18 of the Kerala Rent
Act, 1965 functions as a court and the period of limitation prescribed therein under Section
18 governing appeals by aggrieved parties will be computed keeping in view the provisions
of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act, 1963 such proceedings will attract Section 29(2) of
the Limitation Act and consequently Section 5 of the Limitation Act would also be applicable
to such proceedings. Appellate authority will have ample jurisdiction to consider the question
whether delay in filing such appeals could be condoned on sufficient cause being made out
by the concerned applicant for the delay in filing such appeals. The decision rendered by the
High Court in the present case as well as by the appellate authority taking contrary view are
quashed and set aside. The proceedings are remanded to the court of the appellate authority,
that is, District Judge, Rent Control Appeal filed before the said authority by the appellant is
restored to its file with a direction that the appellate authority shall consider Interlocutory
appeal filed by the applicant for condonation of delay on its own merits and then proceed
further in accordance with law.
HELD
Appeal allowed.

SULAIKHA BEEVI v. MATHEW

FACTS
The plaintiffs son, Iqbal Ahmuned has graduated in Medicine with M.B.B.S. degree and
desires to start a dispensary in the plaint schedule building. He does not own any suitable
building in Trivandrum or elsewhere and is dependent on the plaintiff for making
accommodation for the said purpose. The plaintiff herself has no possession of any other
building suitable to help her son. As the first defendant was continuing in the premises as a
lessee from month to month since 30.4.1966 a notice to quit as required under S. 106 of the
Transfer of Property Act was issued to the first defendant terminating the lease with effect
from 31.5.1976. Notwithstanding the same termination, as the first defendant did not vacate
the premises and surrender possession of the building and appurtenant ground to the plaintiff,
he moved an application before the Rent Control Court for obtaining possession of the
building and the premises. The application was filed under Ss. 11(3) and 11(4)(iii) of the
Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act.
ISSUE
Whether the respondents are entitled to the benefit of S. 106 of the Kerala Land Reforms
Act?
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to evict the defendants as per the grounds mentioned in the
plaint?
CONTENTIONS
Before the Rent Control Court, the defendants raised the contention that they are entitled to
the benefit of S. 306 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The Rent Control Court found that this
contention to be bonafide. Since it could not decide the question, the application was rejected
giving liberty to the plaintiff to file suit. According to the first defendant, he is conducting
limber business in the property. According to him, he has constructed a building therein. As
the property was given on rent in 1120 M.E., the plaintiff submits that there is no fixity of
tenure for the defendant. It is further submitted that the building was sub-let to the second
defendant- Firm and the plaintiff needs the building bonafide for the purpose of her son to
start a Nursing Home. Further, it was started that the first defendant has got property of his
own at Karamana, Killippalam and hence, the plaintiff is also entitled to get eviction under
S.11(4)(iii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act.

OBSERVATION AND HELD

In the above view of the matter, The view that the respondents are not entitled to the benefit
of S. 106 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. 25. The next question is whether the plaintiff is
entitled to evict the defendants as per the grounds mentioned in the plaint? In the plaint, the
plaintiff has prayed for eviction of the defendants under Ss. 11(3), 11(4)(i) and S. 11(4)(iii)
and also prayed for recovery of arrears of rent. The trial court passed a decree for recovery of
arrears of rent. Against that, an appeal was filed by the defendants, which was dismissed. No
further appeal has been filed by the defendants. Both the trial court and the Appellate Court
did not consider the question whether the plaintiff is entitled to eviction on the grounds
mentioned in the plaint. It is because both the courts found that the defendants are entitled to
the benefit under S. 106 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. After the reference was obtained
from the Tribunal, PW1 was examined before the trial court. The defendants did not adduce
any evidence before us. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that since there is only
the evidence of the plaintiff and the grounds are proved, eviction should be ordered under Ss.
11(3), 11(4)(i) and 11(4)(iii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, The
building was required for the purpose of conducting a nursing home by the plaintiff's son.
Further allegation was that the building was let out to the Firm and that the first defendant has
another plot in Karamana to conduct the Saw Mill. Learned counsel for the respondents
submitted that as a matter of fact, the defendants did not adduce any evidence because of the
findings of the Land Tribunal and further both the courts below have not considered any
aspect.

K K. KRISHNAN VS M.K. VIJAYA RAGHAV

FACTS
The respondent-landlord filed a petition for eviction of the appellant-tenant from the premises
in dispute under s. 11(4)(i) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, No. II of
1965, on the ground that the appellant had sub-let the premises without the consent of the
landlord. The petition had a chequered career but finally the Rent Controller ordered eviction
by his order dated July 31, 1974. The order of the Rent Controller was confirmed,
successively by the Subordinate Judge, the District Judge and, the High Court. The tenant has
now preferred this appeal by special leave of this Court under Art, 136 of the Constitution.
ISSUE
Can the appellant be evicted?
CONTENTIONS
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that under s. 108(j) of the Transfer of Property
Act, 1882, it was a term of every lease that the lessee might sub-lease the whole or any part
of his interest in the property and, therefore, unless the lease expressly prohibited the lessee
from sub-letting the whole or part of the premises, the landlord could not have recourse to s.
11(4)(i) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act.
OBSERVATION AND HELD
In order to appreciate the submission of the counsel for appellant , the court set out the
relevant statutory provisions.
S. 108(j) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, is as follows:
The lessee may transfer absolutely or by way of mortgage or sub-lease the whole or any part
of his interest in the property, and any transferee of such interest or part may again transfer it.
The lessee shall not, by reason only of such transfer, cease to be subject to any of the
liabilities attaching to the lease; Nothing in this clause shall be deemed to authorise a tenant
having an untransferable right of occupancy, the farmer of an estate in respect of which
default has been made in paying revenue, or the lessee of an estate under the management of
a Court of Wards, to assign his interest as such tenant, farmer or lessee;

S. 11 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, No. II of 1965, to the extent that
it is relevant is as follows:
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract a tenant shall
not be evicted whether in execution of a decree or otherwise, except in accordance with the
provisions of this Act.
It is clear from what has been said that not all the rights conferred on landlord and tenant by
s. 108 and other provisions of the Transfer of Property Act have been left in tact by the
various State Rent Acts and that if a State Rent Act makes provision for eviction on certain
specified grounds, eviction cannot be resisted on the basis of rights conferred by the Transfer
of Property Act. Section 108(j) of the Transfer of Property Act stands displaced by s. 11(4)(i)
of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act and is no defence to an action for
eviction based on s. 11(4)(i).