IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI FRIDAY, THE 31ST JULY 2009 / 9TH SRAVANA 1931 RCRev..No. 164 of 2009() ------------------------ RCA.14/2007 OF RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM RCOP.1/2003 OF RENT CONTROL COURT, KOTTAYAM .................... PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/TENANTS: -------------------------------------------- 1. K.K.POTHEN, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O LATE K.P.KURUVILLA, KONDAKERIL HOUSE, SOUTH PAMPADY, KUTTICKAL P.O. KOTTAYAM. 2. RAJU K.PHILIP, AGED 44 YEARS S/O K.P.POTHEN, KONDAKERIL HOUSE, VELOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE PALLATTUKARAN RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/LANDLORDS: --------------- 1. MRS. SAINABHA SALEH, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, PUTHENPARAMBIL HOUSE, MARKET ROAD, THIRUNAKKARA, KOTTAYAM. 2. MRS. NAZLEEN SALEH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, PUTHENPARAMBIL HOUSE, MARKET ROAD, THIRUNAKKARA, KOTTAYAM. 3. NIAZ SALEH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, PUTHENPARAMBIL HOUSE, MARKET ROAD, THIRUNAKKARA, KOTTAYAM. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No.164 of 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 31st day of July, 2009 ORDER Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The tenants and the alleged sub tenant are the revision petitioners and they challenge the order of eviction concurrently passed on the grounds of arrears of rent and sub letting. The respondents filed a joint statement of objections. The petitioners' defence to the case of arrears of rent was that the landlords were not available in station and hence the rent could not be paid to them directly. They contended that they had opened an account with a local bank and were regularly remitting the amount into that account. The authorities below did not become inclined to accept this defence since absolutely no evidence was adduced by the revision petitioners to prove the same. Sri.Jose Pallattukaran, learned counsel for the revision petitioners submits that if time is given, the petitioners will produce evidence regarding the opening of account and remittance of rent regularly into that account by the revision petitioners. We are not inclined to grant time. The order of RCR.No.164/2009 2 eviction passed under Section 11(2) (b) is a tentative order of eviction, which is liable to be vacated on making deposit and on making motion before the rent control court under Section 11 (2) (c). It is open to the revision petitioners to withdraw the amounts from the account allegedly opened by them for depositing the rent and make deposit or payment of arrears of rent found by the authorities below and get the order vacated under Section 11 (2)(c). 2. The substantial ground on which the eviction is ordered is the ground of sub letting. The landlords relied on the rent deed of 1975 under which one Sri.K.P.Kuruvila, father of the first revision petitioner(first respondent in the RCP) was the tenant. The case of the landlords was that upon demise of K.P.Kuruvila, tenancy rights devolved upon Sri.K.K.Pothan (first revision petitioner) and that Sri.K.K.Pothan has either sub let or transfer the possession of the premises to the second revision petitioner Sri.Raju K.Philip. Notice under Section 11 (4) (1) was issued to the revision petitioners seeking termination of the alleged sub lease. Sub lease was not terminated. The defence of the revision petitioners to the landlord's case of sub lease was that RCR.No.164/2009 3 tenancy started in 1954 on the basis of a rental arrangement under which the first counter petitioner and his two brothers were partners. But it is specifically admitted by them that in 1975 fresh rent deed was executed in respect of the building. What is contended is that fresh rent deed of 1975 was executed in renewal. The rent control court and the appellate authority did not become inclined to accept the defence based on the rental arrangement of 1954 in favour of a partnership form. According to us, in the teeth of the clear admission made by the the revision petitioners that deed was executed in 1975 in renewal of the old rent deed, the landlords' case that the tenancy was governed by the deed of 1975 had to be accepted by the authorities. 3. We have gone through the order of the rent control court as well as the judgment of the rent control appellate authority. We find that the findings entered therein that the relationship between the first respondent and the second respondent in the RCP is either that of tenant and sub tenant or tenant and transferee is founded on evidence. No evidence whatsoever could be produced by the revision petitioners to prove that the RCR.No.164/2009 4 second respondent had acquired any tenancy rights over the building in question. There was not even a scintilla of evidence to show that at any point of time, the second revision petitioner had paid the rent in respect of the building and that the landlords have acquiesced him also as a tenant. Under the statutory scheme, final court on facts is the rent control appellate authority. We do not find any illegality or irregularity or impropriety warranting invocation of the revisional jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Act. The RCR will stand dismissed. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE dpk