JAYAKUMAR B vs VIJAYAKUMAR B

Court
Kerala High Court

CNR : KLHC010665932026

O.P(RC)No.163 of 2026 1
2026:KER:68997
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SOUMEN SEN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
TH
THURSDAY, THE 10 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 / 19TH BHADRA, 1948
OP (RC) NO. 163 OF 2026
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN IA 0/2026 IN RCP NO.
OF 2026 OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT ,NEYYATTINKARA
PETITIONER
JAYAKUMAR B
AGED 67 YEARS
S/O. BHASKARA PANIKKAR, T.C.16/1665, 'SOUPARNIKA',
JAGATHY, THYCAUD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695014
BY ADV SRI.H.KIRAN
RESPONDENT
VIJAYAKUMAR B
AGED 68 YEARS
S/O BASIL P, TC 88/388, CHAITHANYA, VALIYATHURA,
VALLAKADAVU P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695008
THIS OP (RENT CONTROL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10.09.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

CNR : KLHC010665932026

O.P(RC)No.163 of 2026 2
2026:KER:68997

JUDGMENT
th
(Dated this the 10 day of September 2026)
Soumen Sen, C.J.
We have heard Mr.H.Kiran, the learned counsel for the
petitioner.
2. The question as to whether the provision of the Rent
Control Legislation shall apply to the area which was formerly
under a Panchayat and has been subsequently extended to the
Municipal jurisdiction has been conclusively decided by a three
-Judge Bench of this Court reported in Vadavathi Rajeevan v.
1
K.Vanaja , wherein a similar issue was discussed and delivered
upon by the Calcutta High Court in Gopeswar Mullick and
2
others v. Biraj Mohini Dassi a pre-independence judgment
delivered by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in 1899
dealing with exemption claimed under the Bengal Tenancy Act by
reason of extension of the boundaries of the land falling outside
the town of Calcutta.
3. For clarity we may refer to paragraph 35.1 and 35.2 of
1 2026 KHC Online 28
2 ILR 27 Calcutta 202

CNR : KLHC010665932026

O.P(RC)No.163 of 2026 3
2026:KER:68997
Vadavathi Rajeevan (supra).
“35.1. The appellant landlord contended that the provisions of
the Bengal Tenancy Act applied to the scheduled property,
namely the land falling outside the town of Calcutta, which had
been notified as the exempted area under the Bengal Tenancy
Act at the time of its enactment. Conversely, the respondent
tenant has argued that since the boundaries of the town of
Calcutta had been expanded and extended under the Municipal
Act of 1888, the newly extended areas should also be deemed
part of the "town of Calcutta," and thus exempted from the
applicability of the Bengal Tenancy Act.
35.2. The Division Bench rejected the tenant's contention and
agreed with the landlord, holding that while the Municipal Act
extended the municipal limits of Calcutta to consolidate and
amend the law relating to municipal affairs of the town and its
suburbs, it did not automatically alter or extend the definition of
“town of Calcutta” as notified under the Bengal Tanancy Act.
Consequently, the land in dispute was not exempted from the
operation of the Bengal Tenancy Act, and the landlord- tenant
relationship remained governed by its provisions. Paras 2 to 4 of
the Calcutta High Court judgment provide a ready reference and
are reproduced as follows
“2. The defence set up in the written statement was a varied
one; that the relation of landlord and tenant did not exist
between the plaintif's and the defendant; that the land was held
in mokurrari and mourasi right; that the defendant had
acquired a title by adverse possession; that the plaintif's were
barred by the statute of limitation, and that, if the defendant
were a tenant under the plaintif's, she was an occupancy raiyat.
Of all these varied contentions, the last only has been argued

CNR : KLHC010665932026

O.P(RC)No.163 of 2026 4
2026:KER:68997
before us. The first Court held that the defendant was an
occupancy raiyat and was not liable to be ejected; the Lower
Appellate Court reversed this decision; hence the present
appeal. It is admitted that, before suit, proper notices to quit
had been duly served on the defendant.
3. The first point argued before us on behalf of the appellant is
that the Bengal Tenancy Act applies to the case, the land being
outside the Town of Calcutta. The respondents contend that,
having regard to Bengal Act II of 1888, the land in question is
within the Town of Calcutta, and so exempted from the
operation of the Bengal Tenancy Act. I am unable to take the
latter view. The term "Town of Calcutta" is one well recognised,
and at the time of the passing of the Bengal Tenancy Act its
boundaries were well known and well defined, and that
expression, as used in the Tenancy Act, can, in my opinion, only
relate to the Town as it existed at the time of the passing of the
Act. No doubt, the area of the Town has, for municipal
purposes, been extended by the Act I have mentioned and this
land is within the extended boundary; but the area was
extended for those purposes only, and not for all purposes. It
could scarcely be contended, for example, that the effect of the
Municipal Act of 1888 was to extend the jurisdiction of the High
Court on its Original Side over the new area, as being within the
"Town of Calcutta." The Act itself draws a distinction between
the "Town of Calcutta," “Calcutta” and the "suburbs" of the
Town, and it would be a strong thing to hold that this Act, which
was one to extend the "municipal limits of Calcutta," and to
consolidate and amend the law relating to the municipal affairs
of the town and suburbs of Calcutta, was an extension of the
"Town of Calcutta” so as to exclude the newly enclosed area
from the operation of the Tenancy Act. It may be noticed that

CNR : KLHC010665932026

O.P(RC)No.163 of 2026 5
2026:KER:68997
the new boundaries are spoken of as those of
Calcutta," not of the "Town of Calcutta."
4. The land in dispute then is subject to the operation of the
Bengal Tenancy Act." (emphasis supplied)”
4. The learned counsel has relied upon a decision of an
3
earlier three Judge Bench in Kuruvilla Abraham v. John to
argue that once the building has become the part of a Municipality
st
by notification dated 31 July 1987, the landlord can evict the
tenant only under recourse to the provision of the Rent Control
Legislation . In our respective reading of the two decisions, it
appears that the issue before the larger Bench in Vadavathi
Rajeevan (supra) was as follows:
“The moot question to be considered, addressed, and
answered by this Full Bench is as follows:
"Whether consequent upon a Panchayat becoming a Municipality, a
further notification under S.1(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and
Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short, 'the Rent Act') is required or not?”
Ancillary to the above are the following questions as well:
(i) Whether the Schedule to the Rent Act remains static until
amended by the State Government in exercise of its power under
s.1(3); or
(ii) Whether it is subject to automatic variation, amenable to constant
3 1995 KHC 32

CNR : KLHC010665932026

O.P(RC)No.163 of 2026 6
2026:KER:68997
modification depending upon changes in the status of the concerned
local authority or body, such as from Panchayat to Municipality or
Municipal Corporation, or upon delimitation of the territories of a
Panchayat, Municipality, or Municipal Corporation. ”
5. A judgment has to be read contextually . This issue has
been answered by relying upon the decision of the Division Bench
of the Calcutta High Court, whereby mainly because an area of the
Panchayat has been added to a Municipality, that by itself would
not extend the provision of the Rent Control Legislation in absence
of the notification.
6. The earlier three-Judge Bench in Kuruvilla Abraham
(supra) was not seized of this issue, and the said observation
cannot be read as a decision on the point on which the reference
was answered. The observation was merely made on the basis
that, by reason of the notification, the Munsiff had lost jurisdiction
to continue with the suit and, accordingly, any order passed by the
Munsiff would be a nullity.
7. It is elementary that a judgment cannot be read as a
statute, and it has to be read and understood in the context of the
issues raised and not what can be logically deduced from it. In

CNR : KLHC010665932026

O.P(RC)No.163 of 2026 7
2026:KER:68997
4
State of M.P. and Others v. Ramesh Chandra Bajpai it is held
that a decision is an authority for what it decides and not what
can logically be deduced therefrom. In Indusind Media and
Communications Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, New
5
Delhi [2019 (17) SCC 108], it is held that the ratio of a decision,
as is well known, must be culled out from the facts involved in a
given case.
8. In view thereof, we do not find any reason to admit
this appeal. The appeal stands dismissed.
This judgment shall not prevent the petitioner to avail any
other remedy as may be available to him.
Sd/-
SOUMEN SEN
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
SYAM KUMAR V. M.
JUDGE
smm
4 2009 (13) SCC 635
5 2019 (17) SCC 108

CNR : KLHC010665932026

O.P(RC)No.163 of 2026 8
2026:KER:68997
APPENDIX OF OP (RC) NO. 163 OF 2026
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE O.S 758 OF 2026 DATED
23.04.2026 FILED BEFORE THE ADDL DISTRICT
JUDGE VII, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY THE
RESPONDENT AGAINST THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED
05.05.2026 PASSED BY THE ADDL DISTRICT
JUDGE VII, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM IN O.S 758 OF
2026
Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE STATUTORY NOTICE DATED
10.06.2026 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE
RESPONDENT TENANT
Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RENT CONTROL PETITION
DATED 23.07.2026 UNDER SECTION 11(2) OF THE
BRC ACT PRESENTED BEFORE THE RENT CONTROL
COURT, NEYYATTINKARA
Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SCHEEN SHOT OF THE
DEFECT IN THE E-COURT SYSTEM NOTED BY THE
RENT CONTROL COURT, NEYYATTINKARA
Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT OF THE FULL
BENCH OF THIS HON’BLE COURT IN VADAVATHI
RAJEEVAN V. K. VANAJA 2026 KHC 28
Exhibit P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT OF THE FULL
BENCH OF THIS HON’BLE COURT IN KURUVILLA
ABRAHAM V. JOHN 1995 (1) KLT 161
Exhibit P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT OF THE
HON’BLE SUPREME COURT IN NATIONAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LTD. V. PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS
2017 (5) KHC 350