IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN FRIDAY, THE 17TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 26TH BHADRA 1932 RCRev..No. 24 of 2010() ----------------------- RCA.21/2007 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY T, KOZHIKODE RCP.203/2004 of RENT CONTROL COURT .KOZHIKODE-I .................... REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1. MARAKKATH ANEESH KUMAR, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.BALAN, RESIDING AT PRAKASH BUILDING, BYEPASS JUNCTION, MEENACHANTHA, NALLALAM AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. 2. MARAKKATH RAJESH KUMAR, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.BALAN, RESIDING AT PRAKASH BUILDING, BYEPASS JUNCTION, MEENCHANTHA, NALLALAM AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.A.BALAGOPALAN SRI.A.RAJAGOPALAN SRI.IMTHIYAZ AHAMED SRI.K.SANEESH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS: --------------------------------------- 1. SHEIK VEETTIL MUHAMMED NAJEEB, AGED 49 YEARS, SON OF KUNJAHAMMED, RESIDING AT PANNIYANKARA AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. 2. SMT.SAUDA NAJEEB, AGED 39 YEARS, W/O.MUHAMMED NAJEEB, RESIDING AT PANNIYANKARA AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. ADV. SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN FOR R1-2 SRI.P.A.HARISH FOR R1-2 SMT.RESMI NANDANAN FOR R1-2 THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No. 24 OF 2010 ------------------------ Dated this the 17th day of September, 2010 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Under challenge in this revision petition filed by the respondents in the Rent Control Petition is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the order that was passed by the Rent Control Court on a preliminary point in the case whether the denial of the landlords' title made by the respondents in the rent control petition is bona fide. The petitioners in the rent control petition (the respondents herein) claimed title to the petition schedule building by virtue of sale deed No.2473/2002 executed in their favour by one Dr. Marakkath Vasu who in turn had obtained title by virtue of a Settlement Deed No.2288/97 executed in his favour by his grand mother Marakkath Kunhamma. According to the petitioners in the rent control petition, the petition schedule building was let out to the predecessor in interest of the respondents in the rent control petition on a rental arrangement and that the status of RCR.No.24/2010 2 the respondents in the RCP is that of building tenants. In the statement of objections filed to the rent control petition, the revision petitioners contended that the sale deed, relied on by the petitioners in the rent control petition, is not capable of conferring title on the petitioners in the rent control petition. More prominently they contended that by virtue of an agreement dated 25/11/1984 executed between Marakkath Kunhamma their grand mother and Marakkath Balan their father, they are having permanent immunity from eviction. Though not in so many words, the contention raised is one of denial of landlords' paramount title over the building and one of a claim of permanent tenancy based on the above mentioned agreement. The Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority, on an analysis of the documents of title relied on by the respondents/landlords as well as the agreement relied on by the revision petitioners, would come to the conclusion that the denial of title/claim of permanent tenancy is not bona fide. 2. On going through the judgment of the Appellate Authority, we find that the said Authority has made a threadbare analysis of the agreement dated 25/11/2004 which is relied on RCR.No.24/2010 3 before us also very strongly by Mr.Balagopalan, learned counsel for the revision petitioners. The learned Appellate Authority has also examined the document of title. It seems that one of the arguments, which were addressed before the Appellate Authority, was that the Appellate Authority does not have jurisdictional competence to decide the question whether the denial of title or claim of permanent tenancy is bona fide. That argument was rightly repelled by the Appellate Authority relying on the judgment of the Full Bench in Parthakumar v. Ajith Viswanathan (2006 (2) KLT 250.). For holding that the Appellate Authority and the Rent Control Court are the Courts having competence to decide whether the question of denial of title and claim for permanent tenancy is bona fide, the Appellate Authority noticed the judgment of this court in Nabeesa Abdul Khader v. Sursh Kurian (2009 (1) KLT 1020) and observed that even if the respondents in the Rent Control Petition has denied the title of the landlords in a serious and specific manner, by such denial alone the jurisdiction of the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority will not be ousted. A copy of the statement of objections filed by the revision petitioners was RCR.No.24/2010 4 placed before us for perusal by Mr.Balagopalan. On critically anaylsing the above statement of objection, what we find is that there is not even serious dispute regarding the proprietary title which the petitioners in the rent control petition claim over the property. In fact, the contention seriously raised is based on the agreement dated 25/11/1984. Prima facie it would appear that by virtue of the above agreement, Sri. Marakkath Balan, the predecessor in interest of the revision petitioners, has been allowed to continue as a tenant in the building for ever, without any liability to pay rent. But, then being a document, which creates lease for a period exceeding one year, we are not in a position to rely on the document as a document creating a lease exceeding a period of one year as the same is not registered. Sections 17 (1)(d) and 49 of the Indian Registration Act places complete Bar on placing reliance on the above agreement as evidence for lease exceeding a period of one year. Once that agreement is eschewed from consideration, there is only the admission of the revision petitioners in the pleading that the status of their father Marakkath Balan over the building as a building tenant. The judgment of the Division Bench in RCR.No.24/2010 5 Aboobacker v. Girija (1995 (1) KLT 553) is a leading case on the scope of the proviso to sub section (1) of Section 11. The ratio of that decision is that in order that a contention of denial of title or a claim of permanent tenancy is upheld by the statutory authorities under the Rent Control Act and parties are relegated to the Civil Court, it is necessary that the authorities should be satisfied that there are strong or at least substantial grounds or sufficient materials in support of the plea of the petitioner and the chances of the plea being upheld by the Civil Court should be on a fairly higher side. The one material relied on by the revision petitioners is the unregistered agreement aforementioned. But, that material not being valid, we do not find any other materials which will indicate that the revision petitioners have a fair chances of success if parties are relegated to the Civil Court. In short, we do not find any irregularity, illegality or impropriety as envisaged by Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965 tainting the judgment of the Appellate Authority. We notice that the rent control petition is of the year 2004 and the same is yet to go for trial. We direct the Rent Control Court to expedite the matter and ensure that the RCP is finally disposed RCR.No.24/2010 6 of at the earliest and at any rate within four months of receiving a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that the finding entered by the statutory authorities that the petitioners in the rent control petition are having title is a finding entered only for the purpose of considering whether the denial of title is bona fide. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE dpk