IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2010 / 24TH ASHADHA 1932 RCRev..No. 188 of 2010 (C) ------------------------------- RCA.20/2008 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM RCOP.1/2007 of RENT CONTROLLER, KANJIRAPPALLY .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------------- JOLLY JOSEPH, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.JOSEPH, OTTACKAL, KANJIRAPPALLY P.O., KANJIRAPPALLY VILLAGE, KANJIRAPPALLY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.SERGI JOSEPH THOMAS SRI.C.HARINDRAMOHAN NAIR ADV. HARINDRAMOHAN NAIR. RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/PETITIONER -------------------------------------------------- MANU K.THOMAS, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, S/O.THOMAS, PALLIVATHUKKALAYA, KOKKAPPALLIL, KANJIRAPPALLY P.O., KANJIRAPPALLY VILLAGE, KANJIRAPPALLY TALUK. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ R. C. R. No.188 of 2010 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 15th day of July, 2010 ORDER Pius C. Kuriakose, J Under challenge in this revision filed under Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965 is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kottayam confirming the order of eviction passed against the revision petitioner under Section 11(2)(b). The respondent/landlord sought to evict the revision petitioner on the ground of arrears of rent only. Before instituting the Rent Control Petition, the respondent issued Ext.A4 notice intimating the revision petitioner of the default in payment of rent and giving him opportunity to discharge the R. C. R. No.188 of 2010 -2- arrears. Significantly, the revision petitioner did not respond to that notice at all. However, when the RCP was filed alleging arrears of rent at the agreed contract rate of Rs.1,500/-, it was contended by the revision petitioner that the Rent Control Petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Ext.A1 lease deed executed between the revision petitioner and the father of the respondent was admitted. But the contention was that the father of the respondent late Thomas was not the only owner of the building. There were other co-owners for the building. It is virtually conceded that the petitioner's father was one of the co-owners. It was also contended that petitioner's father is survived not by the petitioner alone. It is in the above context that the R. C. R. No.188 of 2010 -3- contention is raised that the RCP is bad for non- joinder of co-owners of the petitioner's father as well as the other legal heirs of the petitioner's father. A plea of discharge was also raised in respect of the quantum of rent alleged as arrears. It was contended that furniture worth a substantial amount was purchased by one of the co-owners of the petitioner's father from the respondent's furniture shop and that the understanding was that credit will be given to the value payable for the furniture against rent in arrears. It was also contended that a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- had been received by the petitioner's father at the time of executing Ext.A1 agreement by way of security. It is contended that the said amount is to be adjusted against rent R. C. R. No.188 of 2010 -4- allegedly in arrears. 2. At trial before the Rent Control Court, the evidence consisted of Exts.A1 to A5, B1 and B2 and oral testimonies of PWs.1 and 2 and DW1. Ext.A2 was a will executed by the petitioner's father bequeathing entirety of his assets in favour of the petitioner. PW2 was one of the attestors to Ext.A2. The Rent Control Court on appreciating the evidence came to the conclusion that the petitioner in the RCP was able to establish existence of landlord-tenant relationship between the parties and also that the allegation regarding arrears of rent stood established on the basis that despite Ext.A4 statutory notice arrears of rent was not discharged within the statutory period of 15 days. Eviction order under Section 11(2)(b) was R. C. R. No.188 of 2010 -5- passed directing the revision petitioner to put the landlord in possession within 30 days. The Appellate Authority considering the appeal preferred by the revision petitioner re-appraised the entire evidence. That Authority also concurred with all the conclusions of the Rent Control Court and confirmed the order of eviction. The Appellate Authority, however noticed, Section 11(2)(c) and granted to the revision petitioner one month's time to have the order of eviction vacated by making requisite application under Section 11(2) (c). 3. In this revision filed under Section 20, various grounds have been raised by the revision petitioner assailing the judgment of the Appellate Authority. Sri.Harindramohan Nair, the learned R. C. R. No.188 of 2010 -6- counsel for the revision petitioner addressed us very strenuously and extensively on all those grounds. Sri.Harindramohan Nair submitted that it has been specifically contended by the revision petitioner through the statement of objections that the Rent Control Petition is bad for non- joinder of necessary parties. According to him, though Ext.A1 is admitted, the contentions specifically raised is that Ext.A1 was executed in favour of the respondent's father as a person representing all the co-owners of the building. Rent, if any, collected by the respondent's father was paid to him for the benefit of the co-owners. Sri.Harindramohan Nair further submitted that the genuineness of Ext.A2 will is seriously disputed. According to him, Ext.A2 will does not pertain to R. C. R. No.188 of 2010 -7- the petition schedule building. Even if it pertains to the petition schedule building inasmuch as petitioner's father the party to Ext.A2 was having only co-ownership rights over the property the present eviction proceedings without the junction of the other co-owners is bad. He argued that the appreciation of pleadings and evidence by the authorities under the statute was highly erroneous and requested that the judgment of the Appellate Authority be vacated. 4. We have very anxiously considered the submissions of the learned counsel. As directed by us Sri.Harindramohan Nair placed before us copy of the Rent Control Petition and the statement of objections filed. We have appraised the above pleadings raised by the parties. We will at once R. C. R. No.188 of 2010 -8- remind ourselves of the contours of this Court's jurisdiction in which we are presently sitting. In the present jurisdiction under Section 20 which is revisional in nature this Court is not expected ordinarily to make a re-appraisal of the evidence for the purposes of substituting the factual conclusions arrived at by the final fact finding authority the Rent Control Appellate Authority especially when the same has been made concurrently with the Rent Control Court. We find on scanning the judgment of the Appellate Authority that the factual conclusions arrived at therein are founded on evidence - oral documentary and circumstantial which was available. Ext.A1 is admitted to be rental arrangement in respect of the building in R. C. R. No.188 of 2010 -9- question. The parties to Ext.A1 are the revision petitioner and late Thomas, the respondent's father. As observed by the learned Appellate Authority, there is nothing on the face of Ext.A1 to indicate that Ext.A1 was brought into existence by the late father of the respondent on behalf of somebody else also. Ext.A2 is a will executed by the late father of the respondent. Its due execution and attestation has been proved by PW2 who is admittedly one of the attestors thereto. The revision petitioner is a stranger to Ext.A2. He is not competent to challenge the genuineness of Ext.A2. The persons who ought to have been aggrieved by Ext.A2 have not come forward so far, as rightly observed by the District Judge to challenge Ext.A2. The revision petitioner R. C. R. No.188 of 2010 -10- concedes the respondent (the petitioner in the RCP) to be at least a co-owner. It is trite by decisions of this Court that even a co-owner will be able to maintain petition for eviction provided there is no opposition from the fellow co-owners in the matter. Ext.A2 is admittedly the document which governs the tenancy. It has become evident that the rent payable as per Ext.A2 is in arrears. The contention is one of adjustment against the price of furniture supplied to one of the so called co-owners of the deceased father of the petitioner in the RCP and that a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- is outstanding with the deceased father of the respondent. These are contentions on which it was for the revision petitioner to have adduced cogent evidence for substantiating. Revision petitioner R. C. R. No.188 of 2010 -11- failed in doing so. 5. It is trite by various decisions of this Court that order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court under Section 11(2)(b) unlike such orders passed under other grounds is only provisional or tentative, in the sense that the same is liable to be vacated by making requisite deposit under Section 11(2)(c). Statutory authorities are not expected to consider the question of proprietary title over the building which is subject matter of the lease. They are expected to be concerned only with the existence of the landlord-tenant relationship which stands proved as per Ext.A2 between the revision petitioner and the deceased father of the respondent. Under the above circumstances, we do not find any illegality, R. C. R. No.188 of 2010 -12- irregularity or impropriety with the judgment of the Appellate Authority. We clarify that deposit of the arrears of rent in terms of the eviction order presently passed for getting the same vacated under Section 11(2)(c) will be complete discharge for the revision petitioner against claims by anybody else for rent in respect of the building in question. 6. Subject to the above clarification, we dismiss the RCR, however, granting to the revision petitioner two months' time from today for getting the eviction order vacated under Section 11(2)(c). PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE C. K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE kns/-