IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RCRev..No. 187 of 2009()
1. SIVAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. CHAMY MOOTHAN
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K.
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN
Dated :26/08/2009
O R D E R
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.
------------------------
R.C.R.No.187 of 2009
------------------------
Dated this the 26th day of August, 2009
ORDER
Pius C.Kuriakose, J.
The tenant, who has suffered order of eviction concurrently
passed under sub section (3) of Section 11 on the ground of own
occupation, is the revision petitioner. The need projected by
the landlord was that the building in question is needed bona
fide for accommodating one of his two sons already married for
seperate residence with family. The bona fides of the need and
the claim were denied by the revision petitioner/tenant. The
Rent Control Court, however, on evaluating the evidence, which
consisted of testimonies of the father of the petitioner in the
RCP as PW1 and that of the needy son as PW2, concluded that
the need of the father to accommodate PW2 for residential
purpose is a bona fide one.
2. The Appellate Authority would reappraise the evidence
and concur with the above conclusions of the Rent Control
Court. It is challenging the order of the Rent Control Court and
RCR.No.187/2009 2
the Judgment of the Appellate Authority that this revision is filed
raising various grounds.
3. Sri.Liju.M.P., learned counsel for the revision
petitioner/tenant would address us on the basis of all the
grounds. However, the learned counsel would give thrust to the
argument that the courts below has not gone into the question
whether the respondent/landlord is having title to the building in
question. According to him, the tenant revision petitioner having
denied the title of the landlord, it was obligatory on the part of
the authorities below to have formulated a preliminary point as to
whether the denial of title is bona fide and if yes to relegate the
parties to a competent Civil Court.
4. We considered the above submissions of the learned
counsel. As directed by us, we were supplied with copy of the
Rent Control Petition and the statement of objection filed by the
revision petitioner to the same and also a copy of the
memorandum of Rent Control Appeal. On going through the RCP
and the statement of objections, we find that there is no specific
denial of the landlord-tenant relationship between the petitioner
in the RCP and the revision petitioner. Title, in the context of
RCR.No.187/2009 3
proceedings under the Rent Control Act, means title as landlord
i.e existence or otherwise of a landlord-tenant relationship.
Proprietary title has only very limited relevance in rent control
proceedings. It is seen that it is specifically contended by the
revision petitioner in the statement of objection that upon
receiving the lawyer notice which was sent to him as prelude to
the proceedings, he sent a reply agreeing to attorn to the
petitioner in the RCP. We also notice that the revision petitioner
averted passage of order of eviction under Section 11(2)(b) by
tendering entire arrears of rent claimed in the RCP. Thus, this is
a case where the revision petitioner has, by conduct, proved
that the respondent (petitioner in the RCP) is his landlord. The
court below cannot be faulted for not having formulated
preliminary point as suggested by the learned counsel for the
revision petitioner.
5. Having gone through the findings of the Rent Control
Court and the judgment of the Appellate Authority regarding the
bonafides of the need and the claim raised by the landlord, we
are of the view that those findings are founded on evidence
which is available on record. We will not be justified, within the
RCR.No.187/2009 4
contours of our jurisdiction under Section 20, in even re
appreciating the evidence. There is no warrant at all for
invocation of the revisional jurisdiction for interfering with the
findings of the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority.
6. As his last submission, Sri.Liju.M.P. Sought for a year’s
time to vacate the premises. We do not think that we will be
justified in granting so much of time, since we are also
convinced that need of the father landlord to accommodate his
married son is a very genuine one. However, in deference to the
request of the learned counsel Sri.Liju, we are inclined to grant
time till 28/2/2010 subject to certain conditions. The result is as
follows;
i). The RCR is dismissed.
ii). The revision petitioner will file
an affidavit before the Execution Court
or the Rent Control Court, as the case
may be, undertaking to give peaceful
surrender of the petition schedule
building to the respondent on or before
28/2/2010 and that he will discharge
RCR.No.187/2009 5
the arrears of rent, if any, and will
continue to pay occupational charges at
the current rent rates till he makes
actual surrender.
iii). Affidavit, as directed above,
shall be filed within three weeks from
today. If such affidavit is filed, the
Execution Court will not order or effect
delivery of the petition schedule building
till 28/2/2010.
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE
dpk