“The plea regarding refusal of title or request for permanent tenancy must be clear, specific and unequivocal, otherwise the Rent Control Court cannot assess whether the said challenge was raised in good faith or whether it was simply a pretext for expulsion.

The division bench of Judge A. Muhamed Mustaque And Justice P. Krishna Kumar observed that the court has a legal obligation to examine the genuineness of the application before taking a crucial decision.

The petitioner’s predecessor in interest entered into a lease with the former owner of the building. The tenancy continued after the death of the original tenant. The current owner wanted to evict the current tenants, claiming that his dependent son needed the building for his professional activity. The tenants said this claim was unfounded. The Rent Control Tribunal and the Appellate Authority ordered the eviction of the tenants. The tenants are contesting this order.

The petitioner claimed that his predecessor was a commercial tenant and was protected from eviction under Section 106 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. They argued before the Court that there were specific assertions in the written objection that the tenancy began on 08/18/1961 and that the original tenant rebuilt the building using his own money after obtained consent from the previous owner to carry out business in Pooja. items. The petitioner argued that this legal issue was not considered by the Rent Control Tribunal and the Appellate Authority even though the petitioner had given oral evidence as a witness.

The Court held that this argument could not be accepted as the applicant had not argued this point specifically and explicitly. The Court observed that although the pleading rule does not strictly apply to rent control proceedings, where it is the duty of the court to examine the authenticity of a claim, the party wishing to present that claim must plead with certainty and precision.

The Court further observed that when a petitioner claims the protection of Section 106 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, he must establish that he has obtained a lease for commercial purposes and that the lessee, after the granting of the lease, constructed the building or structure before 05/20. /1967. The Court held that in the absence of any specific argument to this effect, the applicant cannot claim the protection of Article 106.

Accordingly, the request was dismissed.

Case No: RCRev No. 228 of 2024

Case Title: Maya MT and Others v Nadukkandy PC Ashraf

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 789