Suresh Babu vs Grace Cherian

SOUMEN SEN, C.J.

Heard Mr. Saji Varghese, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P. Santhalingam, learned Senior Advocate instructed by Mr. Abraham K. George, learned counsel for the respondent.

The respondent in the eviction proceedings is the petitioner herein. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Additional Munsiff Rent Controller in R.C.P. No. 183 of 2024, wherein it was held that the relationship between the parties is that of landlord and tenant. While arriving at the said finding, the learned Rent Control Court placed reliance upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Associated Hotels v. R.N. Kapoor^{11.AIR 1959 SC 1262}, Beena v. Ramachandra Rao^{22.(2004) 3 SCC 595} and the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Velayudhan Nair v. Young Mens Christian Association^{33.2016 (2) KHC 640}.

The first question that arises for consideration is whether the learned Rent Control Court could have at all proceeded to adjudicate upon the issue of existence of a landlord–tenant relationship when, in paragraph No. 3 of the statement of facts, it has been specifically pleaded that the relationship between Grace Cherian and Suresh Babu is governed by a licence agreement dated 16.12.2019. It is submitted that though paragraph No. 3 of the statement of facts refers to payment of monthly rent under the licence agreement, the renewal licence agreement dated 24.12.2020 does not describe the respondent as a tenant and there has been no mention of any licence fee. It is further submitted that the renewal licence agreement dated 24.12.2020 describes the parties as “Licensor” and “Licensee”. The amount payable for occupation and enjoyment of the premises is expressly termed as “licence fee”, and the nomenclature of the agreement is as a “Licence Deed”.

In the first place, while entertaining the said petition, the Rent Control Court could not have exercised jurisdiction, as the Rent Control Court is competent to decide only disputes between a landlord and a tenant. However, in the said proceedings, the present petitioner, in his objection, has specifically highlighted that the relationship between the parties is not that of landlord and tenant. In our view, this objection ought to have been accepted on the basis of a plain reading of the claim petition itself, which describes the respondent (the present petitioner) as a “licensee”. The licence agreement dated 16.12.2019 is produced before this Court for the purpose of consideration as to whether the said agreement makes any mention of a monthly rent as opposed to a licence fee. The Rent Control Court has proceeded on the basis that the landlord has raised a claim for eviction. It is elementary that the Court will exercise jurisdiction only on the basis of the pleadings made by the claimant. If the claimant contends that the licence agreement is the foundation of the relationship, but in the eviction proceedings, asserts that a landlord–tenant relationship exists, the Rent Control Court is required to first ascertain whether, on the basis of the averments and documents presented, it can entertain and accept the said petition.

In the statement of facts, it was not even contended that, although the agreement was described as one of licensor and licensee, and a licence fee was mentioned, in reality the relationship was governed by the provisions of the Rent Control Act. However, by the time the matter was being considered by the Rent Control Court, the present petitioner had filed his written objections in the suit earlier instituted by Grace Cherian for eviction of the respondent on the ground of revocation of the licence in which, in the counter statement, Suresh Babu has taken the plea that he is, in effect, a tenant and not a licensee.

The eviction of a licensee and eviction of a tenant arise on entirely different legal grounds. In the case of a licensee, mere revocation of the licence may be enough. However, in the case of a tenant, eviction can only be sought on grounds specifically recognized under the relevant Rent Control legislation, and such grounds must be clearly established. The learned Rent Control Court, upon analysing the documents, has concluded that the relationship between the parties is that of landlord and tenant, thereby accepting the plea of the defendant in the eviction suit that the present petitioner is, in effect, a tenant. All that was required of Grace Cherian in the Rent Control proceedings was to amend the petition and appropriately accept the plea of Suresh Babu as tenant thereby abandoning her claim in the civil suit.

We have been informed that Civil Suit No. 1078 of 2023 is pending before the Munsiff Court, Ernakulam. Having regard to the fact that the learned Additional Munsiff– Rent Controller has arrived at a finding that the relationship between the parties is that of landlord and tenant, so long as the said finding continues, it may operate as res judicata between the parties in the pending proceedings.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is permissible for the petitioner to take inconsistent pleas; however, it is ultimately for the claimant–petitioner to establish his case on the basis of the pleadings. In the present case, Grace Cherian has accepted the judgment in R.C.P. No. 183 of 2024, which held that the relationship between the parties is that of landlord and tenant.

We have carefully read the petition filed under Sections 11(2), 11(3), 11(4)(i), 11(4)(ii), and 17 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965, and found that, although the petitioner has described the licence fee as also monthly rent, the grounds made out for eviction are the grounds which are available to him under the Rent Control legislation. The dominant feature of the said claim petition, though not very happily drafted, clearly indicates that the proceedings were initiated under the Rent Control legislation. This is further reinforced by the fact that the respondent (the present petitioner) has accepted in O.S. No. 1078 of 2023 that he is a tenant and not a licensee, and the Rent Control Court has proceeded on that basis after a proper analysis of the licence agreement. We are not inclined to interfere with the order under challenge. However, the finding of a landlord– tenant relationship, as recorded in the said order based on the admission of the relationship by the tenant in the civil suit, would be binding between the parties. The logical conclusion that follows is that any claim for eviction of the respondent as a licensee is bound to fail. Consequential reliefs, if any, claimed must fail.

The OP(RC) is accordingly disposed of.

Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO. 1078/2023

Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE RENT CONTROL PETITION IN RCP NO.142/2023 ON THE FILES OF THE RENT CONTROL COURT, ERNAKULAM

Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE AMENDMENT APPLICATION IA NO.2 OF 2023 IN RCP NO.142 OF 2023

Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN O.S.NO.1078/2023

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN O.S.NO.1078/2023 IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM

Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 03.07.2025 IN OP(C) NO.2884 OF 2024

Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE RENT CONTROL PETITION IN RCP NO.183 OF 2024 ON THE FILES OF THE RENT CONTROLLER, ERNAKULAM

Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER,DATED 04.06.2025

Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY O FTHE PETITION IN I A NO. 1 OF 2024 IN RCP NO 183 OF 2024

Exhibit P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT DATED 09.07.2025 FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN SECTION 12 PETITION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT

Exhibit P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE RENEWED RENT AGREEMENT PERTAINING TO THE GROUND FLOOR OF THE BUILDING DOOR NO.61/77A DATED 16.12.2019

Exhibit P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE RENEWED RENT AGREEMENT PERTAINING TO THE FIRST AND SECOND FLOORS OF THE BUILDING DATED 16.12.2019

Exhibit P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF RCP NO. 183/2024 IN THE COURT OF III RD ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF & RENT CONTROLLER, ERNAKILAM DATED 16.09.2025