IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 31ST AUGUST 2011 / 9TH BHADRA 1933 RCRev..No. 254 of 2010() ------------------------------ RCA.93/2007 of DISTRICT COURT,KOZHIKODE RCP.7/2003 of PRL. MUNSIFF COURT,KOZHIKODE-II .................... REV.PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT -------------------------------------------------------- MARTIN LIBERA,AGED 83,S/O.FRANCIS, BUSINESS, BEYPUR, AMSOM AND DESOM OF KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE-673 015. BY ADV. SRI.E.NARAYANAN RESPONDENT(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONER -------------------------------------------------- CHERIYA MALLIYEKKAL AMINABI, AGED 82, OWN AFFAIRS, D/O.N.C.ABOOBACKER, BEYPUR AMSOM AND DESOM OF KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE-673 015. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: svs PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.C.R. No. 254 of 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 31st day of August, 2011. ORDER P.Bhavadasan, J, The tenant, who suffered an order of eviction at the hands of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, is the revision petition. 2. According to the landlord, the petitioner was put in possession of the property for a monthly rent of Rs.500/- and he defaulted in payment of rent from June, 2000 onwards. Notice issued invoked no response. So, she filed a petition Section 11 (2)(b) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. 3. The petition was resisted by the respondent on the ground that no building was entrusted to him and what was entrusted was the land, on which he put up a shed for his business purpose. It is also pointed out that the subject matter of lease did not exist. R.C.R.254/2010. 2 4. On the above pleadings, issues were raised by the Rent Control Court. The evidence consists of the testimony of P.W.1 and documents marked as Exts. A1 to A2(b) from the side of the petitioner. The respondent examined himself as R.W.1. The Rent Control Court took the view that the landlord has not been successful in establishing her case and dismissed her petition. 5. Landlord preferred an appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Court. The appellate court found that there was subsisting landlord-tenant relationship between the parties, and therefore the view of the Rent Control Court was not acceptable. Finding that the rent was in arrears, eviction was ordered by the Rent Control Appellate Court. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner pointed out that the subject matter of the lease did not exist and therefore the order of the appellate court is not justified. It was also contended that what was entrusted was only the land, and the shed was put up by the petitioner. R.C.R.254/2010. 3 7. It is to be borne in mind that this Court is exercising jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, which is a very limited jurisdiction. It is seen from the order of the appellate court that it has considered all the aspects and found that there was subsisting landlord-tenant relationship between the parties and rent has been kept in arrears as claimed by the landlord. The appellate court has considered the evidence elaborately and had come to the conclusion that the claim put forward by the tenant cannot be countenanced. The finding regarding the relationship is a finding of fact arrived at on the basis of appreciation of evidence in the case. Sitting in revision, this court will not be justified in interfering with those findings unless they are so perverse or unwarranted by the evidence on record. There is no such infirmity in the present order. After going through the materials and on hearing counsel, we feel that the findings of the appellate court are justified. R.C.R.254/2010. 4 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner expressed an apprehension that if the court holds that there is arrears of rent, a suit will be filed for recovery of arrears of rent. It is trite that a suit, if at all could be filed, can be filed only in respect of arrears for three years and not for the period before that. Considering the various aspects, we grant two months to the petitioner to deposit the arrears of rent and move an application under Section 11(2)(c) to have the application considered on merits. There will be no order as to costs. Pius C. Kuriakose, Judge P. Bhavadasan, Judge sb.