NALAKATH SAINUDDIN Vs. KORIKADAN SULAIMAN
LAWS(SC)-2002-7-78
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on
July 08,2002
NALAKATH SAINUDDIN
Appellant
VERSUS
KOORIKADAN SULAIMAN
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
MAJOR S S KHANNA IN BOTH THE APPEALS VS. BRIG F J DILLON IN BOTH THE APPEALS [REFERRED]HUKUMCHAND MILLS LIMITED VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL BOMBAY [REFERRED]
SHANKAR RAMCHANDRA ABHYANKAR VS. KRISHNAJI DATTATREYA BAPAT [REFERRED]
GANGA BAI VS. VIJAY KUMAR [REFERRED]
BABULAL NAGAR VS. SYNTHETICS LIMITED [REFERRED]
MOHAR SINGH VS. DEVI CHARAN [REFERRED]
SEETARAM VS. RAMABAI [REFERRED]
B P PATHAK VS. RIYAZUDDIN [REFERRED]
SARDARILAL VS. NARAYANLAL [REFERRED]
K VENKATARAMANI VS. S ARAVAMUTHAN [REFERRED]
GADDAM CHINNA VENKATA RAO VS. KORALLA SATYANARAYANAMURTHY [REFERRED]
Cited Judgements :-
RAJESH KUMAR SHARMA AND ANR. VS. BHAGWAN DAS [LAWS(ALL)-2006-10-239] [REFERRED TO]HARVINDER SINGH VS. PARADISE TOWERS PVT. LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2013-1-354] [REFERRED TO]
SHEREEF VS. MUHAMMED SHEFEEK AND OTHERS [LAWS(KER)-2017-4-54] [REFERRED TO]
RANJIT SINGH VS. MANGAL SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2005-1-31] [REFERRED TO]
LEKH RAJ VS. JATINDER KUMAR [LAWS(P&H)-2006-7-444] [REFERRED TO]
HIRA CHAND VS. SUKHDEV RAJ JAIN [LAWS(P&H)-2008-4-42] [REFERRED TO]
RAMAYYAN VS. RAJAGOPAL [LAWS(KER)-2004-8-74] [REFERRED TO]
C M BONNY VS. KOSHI P JOHN [LAWS(KER)-2004-12-56] [REFERRED TO]
GURKHO BAI VS. KUVER SINGH [LAWS(MPH)-2019-1-235] [REFERRED TO]
FEB INDIA OVERSEAS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. S.N.SHEOPORI [LAWS(DLH)-2013-1-318] [REFERRED TO]
FEB INDIA OVERSEAS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. S.N.SHEOPORI [LAWS(DLH)-2013-1-318] [REFERRED TO]
MAHABALLI BOGRA SHETTY THR. LEGAL HEIRS VS. MOHINI THADHARAM CHAWLA SINCE DECD. THRU LEGAL HEIRS [LAWS(GJH)-2015-9-147] [REFERRED TO]
BHIKHRAM BHAGAT VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2019-8-125] [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE/COUNCIL VS. VIMLA DEVI [LAWS(P&H)-2019-11-298] [REFERRED TO]
KOROTHMKANDY KHALID VS. SIRAJUDHEEN P. [LAWS(KER)-2022-10-310] [REFERRED TO]
JAMSHED HORMUSHJI WADIA VS. BOARD OF TRUSTEES PORT OF MUMBAI [LAWS(SC)-2004-1-47] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESHWARI DEVI D VS. D J [LAWS(ALL)-2005-9-130] [REFERRED TO]
NAIRA VS. ASIF AKBAR SOFI [LAWS(J&K)-2008-12-63] [REFERRED TO]
GOLDEN GATE CLOTHING PVT LTD VS. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD [LAWS(NCD)-2002-10-56] [REFERRED TO]
FRANCIS VS. SREEDEVI VARASSIAR [LAWS(KER)-2003-1-76] [REFERRED TO]
ROSHAN LAL SOOD VS. SANJEEV AGGARWAL [LAWS(HPH)-2017-12-221] [REFERRED TO]
YADAV MOTORS VS. HITENDRA KUMAR AHUJA [LAWS(ALL)-2006-8-230] [REFERRED TO]
FAB INDIA OVERSEAS PRIVATE LTD. VS. S.N. SHEOPURI [LAWS(DLH)-2015-10-142] [REFERRED TO]
FAB INDIA OVERSEAS PRIVATE LTD. VS. S.N. SHEOPURI [LAWS(DLH)-2015-10-142] [REFERRED TO]
RAM KUMAR VS. S.K. GULATI [LAWS(DLH)-2013-9-242] [REFERRED TO]
REPTAKOS BRETT COMPANY LIMITED VS. UTKARSH GRANITE PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(ALL)-2022-4-184] [REFERRED TO]
R SAKTHIVEL VS. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE [LAWS(MAD)-2010-8-170] [REFERRED TO]
BABA SHADI RAM KATANIWALA VS. PADAM DEV AUPLISH [LAWS(P&H)-2007-5-55] [REFERRED TO]
NARENDRA MOHAN ARYA VS. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD [LAWS(SC)-2006-4-69] [REFERRED TO]
PRAMOD KUMAR JAISWAL VS. BIBI HUSN BANO [LAWS(SC)-2005-5-69] [REFERRED TO]
NAND KUMAR THAKUR VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2014-9-9] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. S.K.L. CO VS. CHIEF COMMERCIAL OFFICER [LAWS(SC)-2015-12-58] [REFERRED TO]
U P STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD VS. AMRIT VANASPATI CO LTD [LAWS(ALL)-2003-4-268] [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD VS. SUKLA DEBNATH [LAWS(GAU)-2003-5-36] [REFERRED TO]
T LAKSHMIPATHI VS. P NITHYANANDA REDDY [LAWS(SC)-2003-3-101] [REFERRED . (PARA 17)]
WAZUL HUSSAIN VS. SIRAJUDDIN AHMED [LAWS(GAU)-2021-12-36] [REFERRED TO]
HIRALAL D VS. VTH A D J [LAWS(ALL)-2005-11-121] [REFERRED TO]
ORISSA STATE BEVERAGES CORPORATION LTD. VS. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER AND ORS. [LAWS(ORI)-2016-2-45] [REFERRED TO]
AJS BUILDER PVT. LTD. VS. HARVINDER SINGH [LAWS(DLH)-2014-7-357] [REFERRED TO]
PARMANAND VS. STATE OF C.G. [LAWS(CHH)-2008-8-32] [REFERRED TO]
SACHINDRA KUMAR PANDEY VS. GORAKHPUR KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK, GORAKHPUR AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2004-5-245] [REFERRED TO]
D P KESARI VS. XIITH A D J ALLAHABAD [LAWS(ALL)-2008-10-40] [REFERRED TO]
SANJEEV AGGARWAL AND ORS. VS. ROSHAN LAL SOOD [LAWS(HPH)-2015-11-97] [REFERRED TO]
KAMATAM SANGALAPPA VS. KAPADAM SNGALAPPA [LAWS(APH)-2012-1-39] [REFERRED TO]
LRS OF IMAMUDIN VS. ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE J D NO 1 BHILWARA AND PREM KISHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2010-2-24] [REFERRED TO]
HAMEEDA BEGAM VS. CHAMPA BAI JAIN [LAWS(MPH)-2003-2-54] [REFERRED TO]
KRIPASHANKAR MUDGAL VS. LALIT MOHAN [LAWS(MPH)-2005-10-42] [REFERRED TO]
PRAKASHCHANDRA VS. MAHALAXMIBEN [LAWS(MPH)-2004-12-1] [REFERRED TO]
SHRI SAURAV JAIN VS. M/S. A. B. P. DESIGN [LAWS(SC)-2021-8-13] [REFERRED TO]
ANWAR ALI VS. ACHAMBATTU SHAREEF [LAWS(KER)-2022-10-195] [REFERRED TO]
THREE STAR ENTERPRISES VS. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR [LAWS(J&K)-2008-12-24] [REFERRED TO]
NAND KISHORE VS. MOHD. IDRISH [LAWS(HPH)-2002-12-17] [REFERRED TO]
SANJAY SINGH VS. CORPORATE WARRANTIES PVT. LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2013-9-140] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
R. C. Lahoti, J. -
(1.)Leave to appeal granted in all the petitions.
(2.)The suit property is a building situated within the jurisdiction of Rent Control Court of Kozhikode. The plan of the property shows that it is a shop with openings on two sides. Though the property is one, however, it has been numbered by the local authority by assigning two Door Nos., i.e. Door No. 6/481 and 6/482. The small corner of the shop situated between the openings on the two sides has been assigned No. 6/482 while the remaining entire shop is assigned Door No. 6/481. The property was owned by Kunhilakshmi alias Leelamma and others and held on tenancy by Nalakath Sainuddin, the appellant, on a monthly rent of Rs. 65/-, the tenancy being a single tenancy for Doors Nos. 6/481 and 6/482. The tenancy had commenced in the year 1969. Sometime in the year 1972, Door No. 6/482 was sublet by the appellant to the respondent-Koorikadan Sulaiman on a monthly rent of Rs. 100/-. On 12-9-1988, the respondent purchased the entire property (i.e. including both the Doors) from the then owners of the property. The respondent then served a notice on the appellant calling upon him to surrender possession over the property in his possession. The notice was followed by an application filed by the respondent in the Rent Control Court for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building on three grounds, viz., (i) that the appellant was in arrears of rent, (ii) that the building was bona fide needed for his own occupation, and (iii) that the respondent occupying only a part of the building required additional accommodation in occupation of the appellant for the landlord's personal use, the grounds as contemplated respectively by Sections 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter, 'the Act', for short).
(3.)The Rent Control Court negated the availability of grounds under sub-sections (3) and (8) of Section 11 of the Act but ordered the eviction of the appellant on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent under Section 11(2)(b). Both the parties preferred their respective appeals before the Rent Control Appellate Authority. The appeal preferred by the tenant was dismissed. The appeal preferred by the landlord was allowed in part. The eviction of the appellant was ordered under Section 11(8) of the Act in addition to Section 11(2)(b), as directed by the Rent Control Court. The dismissal of claim for eviction under Section 11(3) by the Rent Control Court was upheld by the Appellate Authority. Feeling aggrieved by the decision of the Appellate Authority, the tenant preferred a revision under Section 20 of the Act before the High Court. The landlord did not pefer any revision against the order of the Appellate Authority. In the revision preferred by the tenant, the High Court has, by its impugned judgment, upheld the order of eviction under Section 11(2)(b). As to availability of ground of eviction under Section 11(8), the High Court has held that the same was not available to the landlord. However, in the opinion of the High Court, the order for eviction could be sustained under Section 11(3) of the Act. Accordingly, the High Court modified the judgment of the Appellate Authority by holding that in addition to the ground under Section 11(2)(b), the order for eviction would be sustainable under Section 11(3) of the Act. The tenant has filed two petitions seeking leave to file appeals by special leave. The landlord has also filed two petitions seeking special leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court and praying for eviction of the tenant under Section 11(8) of the Act also. However, in the narration of facts herein we have referred to the status of the parties as they are arrayed in appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 1599-1600/2001 filed by tenant.
(2.)The suit property is a building situated within the jurisdiction of Rent Control Court of Kozhikode. The plan of the property shows that it is a shop with openings on two sides. Though the property is one, however, it has been numbered by the local authority by assigning two Door Nos., i.e. Door No. 6/481 and 6/482. The small corner of the shop situated between the openings on the two sides has been assigned No. 6/482 while the remaining entire shop is assigned Door No. 6/481. The property was owned by Kunhilakshmi alias Leelamma and others and held on tenancy by Nalakath Sainuddin, the appellant, on a monthly rent of Rs. 65/-, the tenancy being a single tenancy for Doors Nos. 6/481 and 6/482. The tenancy had commenced in the year 1969. Sometime in the year 1972, Door No. 6/482 was sublet by the appellant to the respondent-Koorikadan Sulaiman on a monthly rent of Rs. 100/-. On 12-9-1988, the respondent purchased the entire property (i.e. including both the Doors) from the then owners of the property. The respondent then served a notice on the appellant calling upon him to surrender possession over the property in his possession. The notice was followed by an application filed by the respondent in the Rent Control Court for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building on three grounds, viz., (i) that the appellant was in arrears of rent, (ii) that the building was bona fide needed for his own occupation, and (iii) that the respondent occupying only a part of the building required additional accommodation in occupation of the appellant for the landlord's personal use, the grounds as contemplated respectively by Sections 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter, 'the Act', for short).
(3.)The Rent Control Court negated the availability of grounds under sub-sections (3) and (8) of Section 11 of the Act but ordered the eviction of the appellant on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent under Section 11(2)(b). Both the parties preferred their respective appeals before the Rent Control Appellate Authority. The appeal preferred by the tenant was dismissed. The appeal preferred by the landlord was allowed in part. The eviction of the appellant was ordered under Section 11(8) of the Act in addition to Section 11(2)(b), as directed by the Rent Control Court. The dismissal of claim for eviction under Section 11(3) by the Rent Control Court was upheld by the Appellate Authority. Feeling aggrieved by the decision of the Appellate Authority, the tenant preferred a revision under Section 20 of the Act before the High Court. The landlord did not pefer any revision against the order of the Appellate Authority. In the revision preferred by the tenant, the High Court has, by its impugned judgment, upheld the order of eviction under Section 11(2)(b). As to availability of ground of eviction under Section 11(8), the High Court has held that the same was not available to the landlord. However, in the opinion of the High Court, the order for eviction could be sustained under Section 11(3) of the Act. Accordingly, the High Court modified the judgment of the Appellate Authority by holding that in addition to the ground under Section 11(2)(b), the order for eviction would be sustainable under Section 11(3) of the Act. The tenant has filed two petitions seeking leave to file appeals by special leave. The landlord has also filed two petitions seeking special leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court and praying for eviction of the tenant under Section 11(8) of the Act also. However, in the narration of facts herein we have referred to the status of the parties as they are arrayed in appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 1599-1600/2001 filed by tenant.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.