IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH AUGUST 2009 / 4TH BHADRA 1931 RCRev..No. 187 of 2009() ------------------------ REAVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT (S): ------------------------------------ SIVAN , S/O. AZHAGIRI, 30/600, NEIKKARA THERUVU, KOPPAM AMSOM, PALAKKAD TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K. RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: ------------------------- CHAMY MOOTHAN, S/O. KRISHNAKUTTY MOOTHAN, ARAPPATH HOUSE, MOOTHANTHRA, KOPPAM, PALAKKAD. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: 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