IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN MONDAY, THE 12TH JULY 2010 / 21ST ASHADHA 1932 RSA.No. 597 of 2010() ------------------------------- AS.151/2000 of II ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, KOLLAM OS.240/1997 of ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT, KOLLAM .................... APPELLANT- APPELLANT-PLAINTIFF ------------------------------------------------------ ABDULKARIM, S/O.MYTHEEN KUNJU, KUTHIRA PANTHI BUNGLOW (BEENA MANZIL), THEVALLY CHERRY, KOLLAM VILLAGE, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.EASWARAN, SRI.P.MURALEEDHARAN (IRIMPANAM). RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS-DEFENDANTS --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. RETNA BAI, W/O.BALACHANDRA SHENOY, CHIRAKKARA PUTHEN VEEDU, KADAVOOR CHERRY, THRIKKADAVOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM. 2. SRI VALSA KUMAR, S/O.BALACHANDRA SHENOI, DO. DO. 3. PADMA KUMARI, D/O.BALACHANDRA SHENOI, DO. DO. 4. ANITHA KUMARI, D/O.BALACHANDRA SHENOI, DO. DO. 5. M/S.DHARSANA TRADERS, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SRI.DINEESH KINI, M.C.789, THEVALLY CHERRY, KOLLAM VILLAGE, KOLLAM. 6. R.N. SATHEESH, PARTNER, M/S.DHARSANA TRADERS, DO. DO. 7. NARAYANA PAI, PARTNER, DO. DO. RSA.No. 597 of 2010 8. DHANYA G.RAO, PARTNER, DO. DO. 9. M.BALACHANDRAN (KALLADA), ADVOCATE, M.C.793, MEMALIKA BHAGAM, THEVALLY, KOLLAM. 10. K.RADHAKRISHNAN, ADVOCATE, DO. DO. 11. VIJAYA KUMAR, S/O.NARAYANAN P.N., YANOOIONSIL, PUNNATHALA CHERRY, KOLLAM WEST VILLAGE, KOLLAM. 12. RAJ KUMAR, DO. DO. 13. MANJU, D/O.LATE RADHA, DO. DO. 14. AJITH KUMAR, S/O.NARAYANAN, DO. DO. BY THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. P.BHAVADASAN, J. ------------------------------------- RSA No.597 of 2010 ------------------------------------- Dated 12th July 2010 Judgment This appeal arises from the Judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court in AS No.151/00. The plaintiff is the appellant. 2. The appeal was directed for reliefs against defendants 6 to 9, which were declined by the lower Appellate Court. 3. The contention of the appellant before the lower Appellate Court was that defendants 6 to 9 are not the tenants of the appellant and according to the appellant, the Trial Court was wrong in holding so. They were characterised as tenants under a mortgagee. So, on redemption, according to the plaintiff, the lease comes to an end and they have no right to continue in the property. Defendants 6 to 9 raised the plea, seeking the benefit under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. RSA 597/10 2 The said claim was accepted. These findings, according to the appellant, are clearly wrong and unsustainable in law. 4. There is no merit in the above contentions at all. As far as defendants 6 to 9 in the suit are concerned, they were occupying room No.MC 792 and conducting business in Ayurvedic medicines. The Trial Court has found that the predecessor in interest Sri.Balachandra Shenoy was conducting business in the said room till his death on 20.04.1992. This claim was supported by evidence on record. It is also found by the Trial Court that rent was being periodically enhanced. Defendants 6 to 9 also produced the document said to have been executed in favour of the plaintiff and also the rent receipts issued by the plaintiff. Therefore, their contention that they are entitled to continue in the premises in spite of the claim made by the appellant, was accepted by the Trial Court. 5. The first Appellate Court has independently considered this aspect. The questions raised before the lower Appellate Court was whether respondents 6 to 9 in RSA 597/10 3 the appeal were tenants under the 5th respondent in the appeal or the appellant. The appellant contended that there was no landlord-tenant relationship between him and defendants 6 to 9 and therefore, they are not entitled to continue in the premises. 6. The lower Appellate Court found that the predecessor in interest of respondents 6 to 9 namely Balachandra Shenoy was a tenant under the appellant. The appellant had let out the room to him in 1958. It was thereafter that the usufructury mortgage was created by the appellant. The mortgagee continued to receive rent from respondents 6 to 9. Under these circumstances, the lower Appellate Court held that it is not possible to say that there was no landlord-tenant relationship between the appellant and respondents 6 to 9. The lower Appellate Court also found that in support of their contentions, those respondents have produced Ext.B18 which is the rent deed executed by Balachandra Shenoy in favour of the appellant. The finding of the lower Appellate Court that RSA 597/10 4 defendants 6 to 9, who are respondents 6 to 9 in the appeal before the Court below are tenants entitled to protection of Act 2 of 1965, is based on evaluation of the evidence on record and it is a finding of fact. Both the courts below have found that there is a landlord-tenant relationship between the appellant and respondents 6 to 9. It is not shown that the findings of the courts below are either perverse or not warranted by evidence on record. 7. No grounds are made out to interfere with the above findings. The result is that the appeal is without merits and it is accordingly dismissed in limine. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sta RSA 597/10 5