PARVATHY vs TATA TEA LTD

Soumen Sen, C.J.

This is one of the classic cases where an order of eviction passed on 30 July 2003 could not be executed due to the obstructions created by the judgment debtors. Even today, the decree holder is unable to reap the fruits of the decree and as observed by the Privy Counsel in General Manager of the Raj Durbhunga v. Maharaj Coomar Ramaput Singh^{11.[(1872) 14 MIA 605; 1872 SCC OnLine PC 16]}, the difficulties of the decree holder begin after the decree is passed.

The original respondents, namely, the Kannan Deven Employees Co-operative Society Ltd. and Mr.Murukan, an Ex-Employee of the said Society, suffered a decree of eviction on 30 July 2003. They preferred an appeal, which was dismissed on 31 May 2005. The Rent Control Appellate Authority confirmed the order of eviction on two grounds, namely, arrears of rent and bona fide need of the landlord. The decree is yet to be executed.

Execution proceedings was initiated in the year 2014. However, due to gross delay and procedural reasons, the matter was not ripe for hearing. In the meantime, taking advantage of the death of the second respondent, his son and wife filed an application under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking a declaration that the decree is a nullity.

The contentions of the applicants are that the property was leased out to the Society in the year 1965 for housing its employees and a lease agreement in writing was executed between the KDHP Company Limited and the Society, namely, the first respondent in R.C.P.No.3 of 2002. The lease agreement was executed prior to the appointed day under the Kannan Devan Hills (Resumption of Lands) Act, 1971 (the 1971 Act), i.e. on 21 January 1971; that the property vested in the Government and that respondent Nos.1 and 2 became the lessees under the Government in respect of the petition schedule property as defined under Section 2(e) of the said Act. However, suppressing the aforesaid fact, the first respondent herein instituted the Rent Control Petition before the Rent Control Court, Devikkulam, claiming that the tenancy commenced only in December, 1971, i.e., almost eleven months after the appointed day.

These grounds cannot be permitted to be raised at the execution stage in a decree where the principal respondent, namely, the Society, and the predecessor-in-interest of the present applicants had filed pleadings and contested the matter on merits.

Factually, the employees of the Tata Tea Limited formed a Co-operative Society, namely, Kannan Deven Employees Co-operative Society Ltd., for their benefit and the same was working at Munnar for several years. On the request made by the predecessors of Society to the predecessor of the Tata Tea Limited, the KDHP Company Ltd. leased out certain buildings to the Society for accommodating its employees. The Society was paying rent to the company regularly. One such building rented out to the Society is the petition schedule building.

KDHP Company Ltd., by transfer deed No.381/77 of SRO, Devikulam transferred its entire assets in KDH Village in favour of M/s.Tata Finlay Ltd., including the petition schedule building described in R.C.P.No.3 of 2002. Thereafter, M/s.Tata Finlay Ltd. became the absolute owner in possession of assets held by HDHP Company in KDH Village. Subsequently, M/s. Tata Finlay Ltd. changed its name to Tata Tea Ltd. and obtained a fresh certificate of incorporation.

On 1 December 1971, the Secretary of the Society executed a lease agreement in respect of the petition schedule property with KDHP Company Ltd. for a period of 1 year from 1 December 1971 to 30 November 1972, agreeing to pay monthly rent for use and occupation of the quarters for its employees and took possession of the same as per the terms of the agreement. The Society continued to pay the rent for several years and after expiry of the period mentioned in the agreement, the Society continued in occupation as a tenant of the petitioner as per the terms mentioned in the said agreement.

Subsequently, the functioning of the Society plunged into difficulties and working of the Society practically came to an end. Thereafter, Inspector of Co-operative Society, Devikulam unit was appointed as Administrator of the Society and at the time of initiation of the said proceedings, it came under the Administrator Rule. In the aforesaid background, Rent Control Petition was filed seeking eviction on the grounds of arrears of rent and bona fide need.

The Society contested the proceedings. In its objection, it was stated that the need of the petition schedule building is neither bona fide nor genuine; that the lease arrangement between the petitioner and the first respondent was a permanent lease; that the Society was existing and functioning and is in the process of resurrection; that the second respondent was an employee of the Society and that the petition schedule property had been allotted to him by the Society and not on a rental arrangement. It was further contended that rent had not been paid as the petitioner stopped receiving the same; that the first respondent is ready and willing to pay rent, but quantum of arrears of rent claimed is not correct. The landlord – tenant relationship between the petitioner and the respondent was not disputed.

Admittedly, the person who sought to challenge the execution proceedings has no locus standi as he was an ex-employee of the Society and the Society was in the best position to raise the issues that are now being raised, however, it did not raise any such issues. The factual background would show that the first respondent established his title and that the plea of permanent lease was rejected. After a prolonged trial, a detailed judgment was passed by the Rent Control Court, which was subsequently affirmed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority.

It was only at the execution proceedings, initiated in 2014, that the legal heirs of the ex-employee of the Society who was the second respondent raised objection questioning the status of the Society. There was no occasion for the second respondent, who is a complete outsider and has no locus standi, to raise such objections. Issues which could not have been raised by him when the main petition was filed, do not require any consideration by the Execution Court. It is an attempt to reopen the decree.

Although we are inclined to impose exemplary costs for abuse of process and deliberate obstruction of the execution proceedings , we refrain from doing so for the time being. In the event, the peaceful possession is delivered to the decree holder within a period of two months from today, the Execution Court may not impose any costs upon the applicants; failing which the Execution Court shall impose exemplary costs for initiation of such frivolous proceedings.

Accordingly, the Original Petition is dismissed.

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN R.C.P.NO.3/2002 DATED 30.07.2003 ON THE FILES OF THE RENT CONTROL COURT, DEVIKULAM,

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 31.05.2005 IN R.C.A.NO.5/2003 ON THE FILES OF THE RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THODUPUZHA,

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE EXECUTION PETITION DATED 16.09.2014 IN E.P.NO.60/2014 ON THE FILES OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, DEVIKULAM

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS DATED 23.01.2016 IN E.P.NO.60/2014 ON THE FILES OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, DEVIKULAM,

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE E.A.NO.10/2016 DATED 23.012016 IN E.P.NO.60/2014 ON THE FILES OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, DEVIKULAM,

Exhibit P6 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03.10.2019 IN E.P.NO.60/2014 ON THE FILES OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, DEVIKULAM,

Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF REVISION PETITION DATED 14.10.2019 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS ON THE FILES OF HON’BLE RENT CONTROL APPELLATE COURT, THODUPUZHA

Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN I.A.NO.1/2019 IN R.C.R.P.NO.1/2019 ON THE FILES OF HON’BLE RENT CONTROL APPELLATE COURT, THODUPUZHA

Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21.12.2024 IN R.C.R.P NO. 1/2019 ON THE FILES OF RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THODUPUZHA