IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RCRev..No. 300 of 2009()
1. R. KRISHNA KUMAR, S/O. RJAGOPALA PRABHU
... Petitioner
2. K.BALU, FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN
3. ANAKANDI YUSUF, S/O. AHAMMAD KOYA,
4. A.ABU, S/O. IMBICHI MOIDEEN HAJI,
Vs
1. KARYATT KUNHAMAD HAJI, S/O. ABDULLKUTTY
... Respondent
2. CHIRAKKAL ABDUL AZEEZ, RUNNING
For Petitioner :SRI.R.RAMADAS
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.S.GOPINATHAN
Dated :06/09/2010
O R D E R
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ.
---------------------------
R.C.R Nos. 300 & 303 OF 2009
--------------------------
Dated this the 6thday of September, 2010
O R D E R
Pius C.Kuriakose, J.
Under challenge in this RCP is the judgment of the Rent
Control Appellate Authority, Kozhikode, remanding the RCP to
the Rent Control Court for considering the merits of various
eviction grounds invoked by the first respondent landlord. RCR
No.303 of 2009 is filed by the first respondent in the RCP, who
according to the landlord is his tenant. RCR No.300 of 2009 is
filed by the other respondents in the RCP who are the alleged
sub lessees. It was on the basis of Ext.A3 lease deed that the
landlord contended that the first respondent in the RCP is his
tenant. The landlord also relied on Ext.A5 lease deed which
was executed by the father of the fist respondent in his favour.
The Rent Control Appellate Authority formulated preliminary
point as required by the proviso to sub section 1 of Section 11
as to whether the denial of title which was made by all the
respondents in the RCP is bonafide. Parties were permitted to
RCR Nos.300 & 303/09
2
adduce evidence also in support of their rival position on the
above point. On the side of the landlord, Exts.A1 to A33
documents were marked and witness PW1 was examined. On
the side of the respondents in the RCP, Exts. B1 to B4 were
marked and witnesses DWs 1 and 2 were examined.
Commissioners report and sketch were marked as Ext. C1 and
C1(a). The Rent Control Court on anxiously appreciating the
various items of evidence, came to the conclusion that the denial
of the landlord’s title made by the respondents in the RCP is not
bonafide. As though in consequence of the above finding,
without adjudicating the existence or otherwise of eviction
grounds invloked, the court held that RCP is liable to be allowed
on all the grounds invoked. The Rent Control Appellate
Authority in the impugned judgment would concur with the
eviction of the Rent Control Court regarding its finding as to
whether the denial of the landlord’s title by respondents in the
RCP is bonafide. But the appellate authority also found that the
Rent Control Court was bound to examine the merits of the
RCR Nos.300 & 303/09
3
eviction grounds after permitting the parties to adduce evidence
concerning the merits of the grounds and objections. It is on
that view of the matter, RCP was remanded. Many grounds
have been raised in these RCRs assailing the judgment of the
appellate court confirming the decision of the Rent Control Court
that the denial of the title is not bonafide.
2. Sri.M.Gopikrishnan Nambiar, the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner and Sri.R.Ramdas, the learned
counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 5 argued before us on
the basis of the grounds. Their submissions were resisted by
Sri. K.B.Sivaramakrishnan, the learned counsel appearing for
the first respondent.
3. We have considered the rival submissions addressed at
the Bar. We have made a quick reappraisal of the evidence.
The question is whether the finding concurrently entered by the
statutory authorities that the denial of the landlord’s title by the
respondents is bonafide. Judgment of the Division Bench of this
Court in Aboobacker v. Girija (1995 (1) KLT 553) is a leading
RCR Nos.300 & 303/09
4
light on the issue. It has been held by the Division Bench in the
above case that when it is contended that the jurisdiction of the
Rent Control Court is ousted as the landlord has no title to
maintain the RCP, the court should have satisfaction that there
are strong or at least substantial grounds or sufficient materials
in support of the plea and the chances of the plea being upheld
by the Civil Court must be fairly on the higher side.
4. It was on an appreciation of the materials which was
produced by the parties who were given all opportunities to
adduce materials that the statutory authorities came to the
conclusion that the denial of the title relied on by the landlord in
these cases for maintaining RCP is not bonafide. We find that
the materials produced on the side of the landlord included
Ext.A3 lease deed directly executed by the first respondent in
favour of the landlord, Ext.A5 lease deed executed by the first
respondent’s father in favour of the landlord, Exts.A2 to A10
which were the counter foils of the rent receipts book pertaining
to various rooms in the larger building (including the petition
RCR Nos.300 & 303/09
5
schedule room) and Exts.A29 and A30 certified copies of the
property tax assessment register pertaining to the building in
question. Significantly while contending that the petitioner in the
RCP has no title, the endeavour of the respondents in the RCP
was to show that the paramount title over the building stands
vested in somebody other than the petitioner. Exts.A29 and A30
are documents as contemplated by Section 26 of Act 2 of 1965.
These documents will show that as per the assessment books of
the local authority, the Kozhikode Corporation, the petitioner is
the owner. According to us, Exts.A29 and A30 when
considered together with the various items referred to by us, will
probabilise the version of the landlord that it was the landlord
who let out the building to the first respondent under Ext.A3. In
other words, the materials placed on record by the parties will
not show that the respondents in the RCP do not have a fair
chance of success if the issue is referred to the civil court.
Applying the principles laid down in Aboobacker v. Girija
(supra) we are of the view that the judgment of the appellate
RCR Nos.300 & 303/09
6
authority cannot be faulted.
Both the revisions are dismissed without any orders as to
cost. Since the RCP is filed way back in 13 years ago, the
learned Rent Control Court shall expedite the matters and the
enquiry will be completed and orders will be passed in the RCP
within three months on receiving a copy of this order.
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,
(JUDGE)
P.S.GOPINATHAN,
(JUDGE)
vps
RCR Nos.300 & 303/09
7
RCR Nos.300 & 303/09
8