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 17TH JUNE 2010 / 27TH JYAISTHA 1932 RCRev..No. 36 of 2010() ----------------------- RCA.31/2008 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY (ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT), PALAKKAD. I.A.NO.143/2007 IN RCP.17/2005 of MUNSIFF-MAGISTRATE (RENT CONTROLLER),PATTAMBI. .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- KUTTIALI HAJI, S/O.YOOSUF, AGED 62 YEARS, CHULLIYIL, THRITHALA AMSOM NHANGATTIRI DESOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK. BY ADVS. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH, SRI.V.C.MADHAVANKUTTY. RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- MOHAMMED, S/O.SAIDALAVI HAJI, KORAKOTTIL, MUTHUTHALA AMSOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MOHANAN(PALAKKAD) THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ORDER ON I.A.NO.263/2010 IN RCR NO.36/2010 DISMISSED 17/06/2010 SD/- PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE SD/- C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------- R.C.R. No.36 OF 2010 -------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of June, 2010 O R D E R ~~~~~~~ PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. A tenant is in revision challenging the finding concurrently entered by the Rent Control Court and the Rent Control Appellate Authority that the denial which he made of the landlord's title to the building which was subject matter of the R.C.P. is not bonafide. The pleadings in the Rent Control Petition will show that the respondent landlord was claiming paramount title over the building by means of the documents which were marked as Exts.P1 to P3. It was in his capacity as the paramount title holder of the building that he claimed that the respondent in the R.C.P., the revision petitioner herein, who is tenant, is liable to pay him rent. The tenant contended through his statement of objection that there is no landlord-tenant relationship between him and respondent in the revision. R.C.R. No.36/2010 2 The contention was that the revision petitioner is tenant and landlord is one Azya Umma, who was formerly the wife of the respondent. In support of this contention, Ext.R1, copy of a Rent Control Petition, which Smt.Azya Umma had filed earlier in respect of another portion of a larger building, a portion of which only is the petition scheduled building was relied on. It was practically conceded that Azya Umma had filed such an R.C.P. and that the said R.C.P. was settled by payment of the entire arrears of rent alleged to Smt.Azya Umma. The Rent Control Court, however, was not much impressed by Ext.R1. According to that Court, in the teeth of Exts.P1 to P3 which will show that paramount title over the building in question has passed on to the respondent landlord, Ext. R1 cannot be of much avail. The Appellate Authority also practically agreed with the view of the Rent Control Court and dismissed the appeal preferred by the revision petitioner. In this revision under Section 20 various grounds have been raised challenging the judgment of the R.C.R. No.36/2010 3 Appellate Authority and the order of the Rent Control Court. 2. Mr.Santheep Ankarath, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, would address arguments before us on the basis of the grounds. According to him, there is no finding entered by the authorities below regarding the crux question whether there exists a landlord-tenant relationship between the parties to the R.C.P. 3. When we pointed out to Mr.Mohanan, learned counsel for the respondent, that no finding regarding existence of a landlord-tenant relationship between the parties by sine qua non for maintaining any Rent Control Petition is absent, Mr. Mohanan submitted that the court below can be asked to enquire into that aspect also along with the issues pertaining to the merits of the eviction ground invoked. R.C.R. No.36/2010 4 4. We have considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. As rightly argued by Mr.Santheep Ankarath, the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority have not enquired into the question whether there exists any landlord-tenant relationship between the parties in the R.C.P. Those authorities enquried into the question of paramount title, which is not expected to be gone into by the authorities under the Act. Perhaps, the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority were persuaded to examine the question of title in view of the peculiar pleadings raised by the landlord. But, whatever be the nature of the pleadings raised by the parties, the authorities should have understood that unless the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship is established between the parties to the R.C.P, it will difficult to maintain an R.C.P. The only circumstance which may justify a finding regarding the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship is the circumstance that the revision petitioner did not send R.C.R. No.36/2010 5 any reply for statutory demand notice issued by the landlord under Section 11(2)(b)(i). But, we feel that it will not be safe to enter a finding regarding the existence of such a relationship relying on that circumstance alone. 5. Exts.P1 to P3 are the documents of title relied on by the landlord. But, none of those documents reveal the existence of any building. The property tax assessment register maintained by the local authority in respect of buildings in their local area can have considerable probative force in the context of proceedings under Rent Control Act. By the instant case, Ext.P4 series produced are only basic tax receipts, which have noting to do with building. Therefore, we are of the view that even the finding entered by the court below regarding the paramount title of the landlord over the building is not satisfactory. But, as already stated, the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority need not be worried about the question of R.C.R. No.36/2010 6 paramount title; they have to be concerned about the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship. 6. We feel that the question whether there exists a landlord-tenant relationship between the parties should be enquired into by the Rent Control Court along with all other issues arising on the pleadings raised by the parties, i.e., regarding the existence or otherwise of eviction grounds. Hence, we set aside the order of the Rent Control Court and the judgment of the Appellate Authority and direct the Rent Control Court to special list the R.P.C for trial, at the earliest available special list. That court is directed to go into the question whether there exists a landlord-tenant relationship between the petitioner and the respondent in the R.C.P. along with the other question as to whether the eviction grounds invoked in the R.C.P. are established. This will be done by the court, after affording sufficient opportunity to all parties to adduce whatever evidence they R.C.R. No.36/2010 7 want to adduce. It was submitted before us by Sri.Jayachandran that Smt.Nazeera, daughter of Smt.Azya Umma, has already filed an impleadment application before the Rent Control Court seeking her impleadment as an additional respondent. It is for the Rent Control Court to take appropriate decision on that application. The R.C.R. is allowed as above, but in the circumstances, without any orders of costs. (PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) (C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE) ps