IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN THURSDAY, THE 25TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 RCRev..No. 370 of 2010() ------------------------ RCA.81/2006 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THRISSUR RCP.13/2002 of M.C.,VADAKKANCHERRY .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT (S): -------------------- UNNI, S/O. KOLPURATH DEVAKY AMMA, VENGANELLUR VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.SREELAL N.WARRIER SRI.B.RAGHUNANDANAN RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: --------------- GEORGE, S/O. PULIKKOTTIL UKRU, PENGAMUKKEN DESOM, KATTAKAMBAL VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No.370 OF 2010 ------------------------ Dated this the 25th day of November, 2010 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Under challenge in this revision filed by the respondent in RCP No.13/2002 on the files of the Rent Control Court, Wadakkanchery is the judgment of the rent control appellate authority confirming the order of eviction passed against the revision petitioner under section 11 (2)(b) of Act 2 of 1965. The landlord sought to maintain the rent control petition on the basis of a rental arrangement between the parties as evidenced by Ext.A1 rent chit. On the allegation that the rent was defaulted and that in spite of the statutory intimation notice, the same was not paid, eviction was sought on the ground of arrears of rent. 2. The revision petitioner disputed the claim contending that the title document Ext.A12, on the basis of which the landlord claimed proprietary title to the building, was intended by the parties to be a security document only. It was contended that the property originally belonged to the revision RCR.No.370/2010 2 petitioner and that it was for securing a loan, which the revision petitioner had contracted from the respondent, that Ext.A12 was executed. Thus the title of the landlord to evict the revision petitioner was denied. The rent control court formulated the point, as envisaged under sub section (1) of Section 11, as to whether the denial of title is bona fide. The further point as to whether the rent is in arrears was also raised. At trial, the evidence consisted of Exts.A1 to A15, Exts.B1 to B15 and oral evidence of PWs 1 & 2 and RW1. The rent control court on evaluating the evidence, came to the conclusion that the denial of landlord's title made by the revision petitioner is not bona fide. On the basis of that finding it was further found that the rent was in arrears as alleged and accordingly order of eviction was passed under Section 11 (2)(b). 3. The rent control appellate authority considered the appeal preferred by the tenant and re appreciated the evidence. That authority also would concur with all the findings of the rent control court. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. 4. In this revision under Section 20, various grounds are raised assailing the judgment of the rent control appellate RCR.No.370/2010 3 authority and Sri. Raghunandanan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, addressed very strenuous arguments before us on the basis of those grounds. The learned counsel submitted that Ext.A12 will show that the building originally belonged to the revision petitioner himself. Ext.A12 was not intended by the parties to be a conveyance deed. It was intended to be a document for securing the loan, which the petitioner had contracted, as the revision petitioner at that time was badly in need of funds for meeting the treatment expenses of his son who even now continues to be under treatment for Haemophilia. 5. The question that we are called upon to decide in this revision is whether the judgment of the appellate authority, which under the statutory scheme is the final court on facts, warrants any interference in the revisional jurisdiction under section 20. Ext.A1 rent chit is not disputed. Ext.A1 will show that the revision petitioner has admitted that he has taken the building on lease from the respondent. In the teeth of Ext.A1, it will be very difficult for any court to accept a plea that the respondent does not have title. In fact title, as contemplated by RCR.No.370/2010 4 section 11 of Act 2 of 1965 is not proprietary title. It is title as landlord. Ext.A1 shows that the respondent is the landlord and the revision petitioner is the tenant. It is appreciating the Ext.A1 and the entirety of the evidence on record, that the authorities below concluded that the denial of title is bona fide and he accepts landlord tenant relationship. The tenant has no case that the arrears of rent demanded in the statutory notice has been paid. In the light of the finding that the denial of title is not bona fide, it will have to follow that the rent is in arrears as alleged by the landlord. In short, we do not find any illegality, irregularity or impropriety about the judgment of the appellate authority confirming the order of eviction passed under Section 11(2)(b). Any order of eviction passed under Section 11 (2)(b) is liable to be vacated by making requisite deposit under Section 11(2)(c). 6. Normally, in terms of the statute and decisions, the revision petitioner is entitled for one month's time to make requisite deposit and get eviction order vacated. In this particular case, a fervent appeal was made before us by Sri.Reghunandanan that, considering the pitiable circumstances RCR.No.370/2010 5 in which the petitioner and his family is presently placed, at least six months time be granted for raising necessary funds. We feel that on the totality of circumstances attending on this case, there is justification for granting four months time to the revision petitioner for making requisite deposits and to get the order of eviction vacated under Section 11(2)(c). 7. Hence, even as we dismiss the revision petition confirming the order of eviction passed under Section 11(2)(b), we grant to the revision petitioner four months time from today to make requisite deposit and get the eviction order vacated under Section 11 (2)(c). The order of delivery naturally will stand adjourned by four months. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE dpk