IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRP.No. 2694 of 2002()
1. DAINUNI KONGANOM VEETTIL THERUVATH,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. RAMU S/O. ASARI VELAYUDHAN, P.O. MADU,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.G.UNNIKRISHNAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI
Dated :16/01/2009
O R D E R
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ.
--------------------------------------------------
C.R.P.No.2694 OF 2002 G
-----------------------------------------------------
DATED THIS THE 16th DAY OF JANUARY, 2009
O R D E R
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, J.
The defeated landlord in a proceeding for eviction on the
ground under Section 11(2)(b) is the petitioner in this Civil
Revision Petition filed under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings
(Lease and Rent Control)Act (Act 2 of 1965). The building in
question belonged to the mother of the respondent and was
conveyed to the petitioner under Exhibit A2 assignment deed. The
mother of the respondent owned a building under Exhibit A3. The
case of the landlord was that after Exhibit A2, the building was
entrusted with the respondent on a rental arrangement under
which the respondent became liable to pay monthly rent at the
rate of Rs.200/- to the landlord. After issuing demand notice
under Section 11(2)(a), the RCP was instituted for eviction,
finding that there was no response to the notice. The R.C.P. Was
resisted by the respondent contending that the respondent’s
status is not that of a tenant under the landlord. It was
contended that the building in question belonged to the
CRP.2694/02 -2-
respondent and that Exhibit A2 assignment deed relied on by the
landlord was a fraudulent document. The Rent Control Court
repelled the contention of the respondent that Exhibit A2
assignment deed is a fraudulent document. That court also
repelled the respondent’s contention that the respondent is
having title over the building. It was positively found that the
landlord has come to have title by virtue of Exhibit A2 assignment
deed. Nevertheless, the Rent Control Court found that the
landlord had not established a landlord/tenant relationship
between the parties and on that reason dismissed the R.C.P.,
obviously taking the view that the jural status of the respondent
is that of an unauthorised occupant continuing in possession. The
appellate authority also concurred with the conclusions of the
Rent Control Court. The appellate authority went to the extent of
observing that the jural status of the respondent is that of a
permissive occupant. Thus both courts have concurrently found
that the rent control petition is not maintainable and that landlord
will have to approach the civil court for getting relief.
2. Though, respondent was served with notice of this
CRP.2694/02 -3-
revision petition, he has not entered appearance before this
Court. We have heard the submissions of Shri Saneesh Kumar,
learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.Saneesh Kumar would
argue that having repelled the defence case of title over the
schedule property and having accepted the landlord’s case of
having obtained title under Exhibit A2, the courts below were not
justified in not accepting the landlord’s case of having given an
oral lease of the schedule building to the respondent. The
learned counsel would assail the finding of the appellate authority
that the jural status of the respondent is that of permissive
occupant. Such a finding is not based on any pleading or
evidence, so submitted the learned counsel.
3. We have very anxiously considered the submissions
addressed before us by Mr.Saneesh Kumar. In this jurisdiction
under Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965, we do not sit in appeal over
the orders passed by the authorities below. We only examine the
legality, regularity and propriety of the orders. The question to
be considered by us is whether the conclusions of the authorities
below that the Rent Control Petition is not maintainable for the
CRP.2694/02 -4-
reason that no landlord-tenant relationship is established between
the parties warrant interference.
4. It cannot be disputed that for maintaining a petition for
eviction under Section 11 of the Act, existence of landlord-tenant
relationship between the parties is a condition precedent. Exhibit
B2 is a document relied on by the respondent in substantiation of
his contention that the building belongs to him. In Exhibit B2, the
mother of the respondent is shown as the owner and occupant of
the building. Exhibit B2 pertains also to the period of
commencement of the rent control petition. Under Section 26 of
the Rent Control Act, the entries in documents of the nature of
Exhibit B2 are to be accepted as correct for the purpose of
proceedings such as rent control petitions. In other words,
Exhibit B2 offers negative evidence against the claim of the
landlord that there is landlord-tenant relationship between the
parties. Of course, it has been found concurrently by both the
courts below that the petitioner is the owner of the building by
virtue of Exhibit A2. Such a finding will not automatically lead to
the conclusion that the jural status of the respondent is that of a
CRP.2694/02 -5-
building tenant under the petitioner. The jural status of the
petitioner, according to us, is either that of persons in
unauthorised possession of the building belonging to the revision
petitioner or that of persons in occupation as licensees,
continuing in occupation on permission granted. Either way, the
remedy available to the petitioner in law is either for recovery of
possession on the strength of title which is conclusively declared
or for a mandatory injunction commanding the respondent to
vacate. If the petitioner sues for recovery of possession on the
strength of the title, it will be open to the petitioner to claim
damages for use and occupation also against the respondent.
With the above observation, we dismiss the C.R.P., since there is
no warrant for invoking the revisional jurisdiction under Section
20 of the Act in respect of the impugned orders.
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE.
M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE.
dsn