IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI TUESDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2009 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1931 RCRev..No. 82 of 2009() ----------------------- RCA.73/2007 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, KOZHIKODE RCP.10/2006 of PRL.M.C.KOZHIKODE-I (IA 5620/06) .................... PETITIONER/APPELLANT/PETITIONER/ RC RESPONDENT (TENANT) ------------------------------------------------- KODUVANA VANAJA, W/O.CHOYI, K.C.COTTAGE, KACHERI AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SMT.T.RESMI DAMODARAN SRI.P.P.RAJEEV LAXMAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/ RC PETITIONERS (LAND LORDS) ------------------------------------------------ 1. PUTHIYAPONMAMICHINTAKATH, KUNHAMMED KOYA, S/O.P.I.ALIKOYA, NAGARAM AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. 2. PUTHIYAPONMAMICHINTAKATH ABOOBACKER KOYA, S/O.P.I.ALIKOYA, NAGARAM AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. 3. C.P.LAILA, W/O.PUTHIYAPONMAMICHINTAKATH HAMSA KOYA, 'PRASANTH', PANNIYANKARA BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, P.P.KUNHAMMED KOYA, S/O.P.I.ALIKOYA, NAGARAM AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.C.R.No.82 OF 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 26th day of May, 2009 ORDER Pius.C.Kuriakose, J. Under challenge in this revision petition filed under Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965 is the order of the Rent Control Court dismissing an interlocutory application filed by the petitioner/tenant for referring the question whether the tenant is entitled to the protection of Section 106 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act and the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the decision of the Rent Control Court. 2. Sri.Resmi Damodaran, learned counsel for the petitioner addressed us very persuasively. However, having regard to the parameters to be adopted for the invocation of revisional jurisdiction under Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965, we do not find any illegality, irregularity or impropriety tainting the orders of the authorities below as to justify invocation of the revisional jurisdiction under Section 20. The petitioner/tenant relied on registered lease deed No.2591 of 1933. It was not disputed before the authorities below that on the terms of RCR.No.82/09 2 that lease deed itself, buildings existed at the time of the lease. In order that a tenant gets the benefit of immunity from eviction under Section 106 what is necessary is that land should have been leased out for commercial or industrial purpose before the cut off date of 20/05/1967 and the lessee should have put up buildings on the land so leased out to him for commercial or industrial purpose. Thus lease of land and construction of building by the lessee should have taken place before 20/05/1967. In the instant case, the recitals in the lease deed relied on by the petitioner will show that even at the time of lease, the building did exist on the leasehold land. 3. Apart from that, the authorities below have found on a scrutiny of the lease deed relied on by the petitioner namely document No.2591 of 1933 that the survey number and boundary of the property leased out in terms of that document are different from the petition schedule property which takes in the petition schedule building in respect of which eviction is sought for by the respondent/landlord. In fact, one of the contentions prominently raised by the landlord was that the tenant is claiming right not in respect of the petition schedule RCR.No.82/09 3 building, but in respect of another building, as noticed by the rent control appellate authority which under the statutory scheme is the final courts on facts. Going by the rent control petition, the petition schedule building is the property which is included as item No. 2 in schedule D of document No. 1395 of 1972 and shown also as item No. 2 in A schedule of document No. 1002 of 2004. It was found that the survey number and boundaries in the schedule of document No. 1002 of 2004 fully tally with the survey number and boundaries of the petition schedule property. It was also found that the boundaries and survey numbers tallies also with the location sketch prepared by the village officer. It is on the basis of that finding that the appellate authority has accepted the contention of the landlord that the building covered by lease deed No. 2591 of 1933 ( in respect of which only the revision petitioner claimed protection under Section 106) and the petition schedule building are different buildings. We do not find any illegality or impropriety about the above findings. The Rent Control Revision will stand dismissed. It is however made clear that this judgment will not stand in the way of the RCR.No.82/09 4 Rent Control Court adjudicating the question whether existence of statutory eviction ground is made out and permitting the revision petitioner to adduce all evidence at her command for substantiating her objections regarding the existence of such eviction grounds. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI JUDGE sv. RCR.No.82/09 5