NALAKATH SAINUDDIN v. KOORIKADAN SULAIMAN

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 1

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: R.C. LAHOTI, B.N. AGRAWAL

Judgment text

NALAKATH SAINUDDIN v. KOORIKADAN SULAIMAN JULY 8, 2002 [R. C. LAHOTI AND B. N. AGRAWAL, JJ. ] Rent Control and Eviction : , Kera/a Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, I965. Section 20-Revisionaljurisdiction ofHigh Court-Eviction order passed on one of the several grounds-Tenant filing revision-Landlord supporting eviction order by disputing correc~ness offinding 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 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 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 ofthe 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 ofin the context ofSection 20(1) of the Kera/a Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. 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 . l 'r 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 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 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 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 nonavailability of ground for eviction under Section 11(8) of the Act.

In appeal 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 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 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 High Court preferred by the appellanttenant can support the decree by urging availability of a ground for NALAKATH SAINUDDIN v. KOORIKADAN SULAIMAN 3 eviction though decided against him by the order impugned before the High Court. Also the High Court was not justified in holding nonavailability of ground under Section·ll(S) of the Act to the respondentlandlord. Allowing the respondents-landlord's appeals and dismissing the appellant-tenant's appeals, the Court. HELD: 1. 1. There is no reason to read and interpret Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 narrowly and limit the scope of revisional jurisdiction conferred on the High Court thereby.

Once a revision petition is entertained by the High Court, whichever be the party invoking the revisional jurisdiction, the High Court acquires jurisdiction to call for and examine the records of the authority subordinate to it. The records relating to 'any order' and/or any proceedings are available to be examined by the High Court for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the (a) legality, (b) regularity, or (c) propriety of the impugned order, including any·, part of the order, or proceedings. The only limitation on the scope of High Court's jurisdiction is that the order or proceedings sought to be scrutinized must be of the subordinate authority. Any illegality, irregularity or impropriety coming to its notice is capable of being corrected by the High Court by passing such appropriate order or direction, as the law requires and justice demands.

The expression 'any aggrieved party' in Section 20(1), means a person feeling aggrieved by the ultimate decision, that is, the operative part of the order. A party to the proceedings, who has succeeded in securing the relief prayed for, is not a party aggrieved though the order contains a finding or two adverse to him. The respondent can support the order and pray for the ultimate decision being sustained, without filing a revision of his own, and for achieving such end he may seek reversal of any findings recorded against him. [13-C-G] 1. 2. In the instant case, a revision preferred under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 by the tenant laying challenge to the propriety of the decision of the appellate authority under Section 11(8) of the Act, the landlord could have urged that the order for eviction could be sustained under Section 11(3) of the Act also.

High Court has not erred in permitting the landlord to urge such a plea in the revision filed by the tenant though the landlord did not file any revision of his own. A landlord who has succeeded in securing an order of eviction on one of the several grounds urged by him cannot be said to be a person aggrieved by such order. He cannot file a revision; rather he can feel satisfied with the order. The person aggrieved is the tenant and in a revision preferred by the tenant it is only just and equitable that the landlord should be permitted to support the order of eviction by disputing correctness of the finding recorded in the impugned order whereby the availability of additional ground for eviction was negatived. Such a right has to be necessarily spelled out in favour of the landlord who has succeeded from the court below else there would be grave injustice. (14-C, DJ Seetaram and Ors. v. Smt. Ramabai and Anr. , AIR (1958) MP 221; Cadden Chinna Venkata Rao and Ors. v.

Koralla Satyanarayanamurthy and Anr. , AIR (1943) Madras 698 and K. Venkataramani v. S. Aravamuthan and Ors. , AIR (1982) Madras 36, approved. Shankar Ramchandra Abhyankar v. Krishnaji Dattatraya Bapat, (1969) 2 SCC 74; Major S. S. Khanna v. Brig. F. J. Dhillon, (1964) 4 SCR 409; Babula/ Nagar and Ors. v. Shree Synthetics Ltd. and Ors. , (1984) Suppl. SCC 128; Hukumchand Mills Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Bombay, (1967] 1 SCR 463 and Smt. Gangabai v. Vijay Kumar and Ors. , (1974) 2 sec 393, referred to. 2. 1. If the respondent is in occupation of part of the building as sub- >, tenant he cannot have recourse to Section 11(8) of the Act. However, if his occupation though having originated as sub-tenant stands enlarged into that of an owner, and hence a landlord, by virtue of his purchase would be entitled to eviction of the tenant under Section 11(8) of the Act.

It would depend on whether the purchase of interest of the owner in the part of the premises held him as sub-tenant results in merger so as to wipe out the sub-tenancy and convert the nature of occupation of the respondent into that of an owner. [14-F, G) ... _ 2. 2. The common law rule that a landlord cannot split the unity and integrity of the tenancy so as to result in possession over a part of the demised premises being recovered from the tenant does not have applicability in India because of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 which provides a statutory exception to the rule and enables an assignee of a part of the reversion to exercise all the rights of the landlord in respect of the portion respecting which the reversion is so assigned subject, of course, to the other covenant running with the land. (16-E, F, G) 2. 3.

In a lease governed by the provisions of the Transfer of Property ' clearing all the arrears of rent and filing an usual undertaking, both within three weeks from today, in the executing court. No order as to the costs. . N. J. Appeals filed by the tenant dismissed Appeals filed by the landlord allowed. ·