IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN TUESDAY, THE 16TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 25TH KARTHIKA 1932 RCRev..No. 3 of 2008() ---------------------- (RCA NO.24/2007 ON THE FILE OF RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, KOLLAM RCP NO.59/2005 OF THE RENT CONTROL COURT, KOLLAM) REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------------------------------- P.REMANI AMMA, SREE RENGAM, JAWAHAR NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) RESPONDENT(S): APPELLANT/RESPONDENT ----------------------------------- V.RAMACHANDRAN, DHANAM HOUSE, CUTCHERRY WARD, KOLLAM, NOW RESIDING NEAR R.S.P.OFFICE, KOLLAM. ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No. 3 OF 2008 ------------------------ Dated this the 16th day of November, 2010 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Under challenge in this revision filed under Section 20 by the landlady is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority setting aside a summary order of eviction passed under Section 12(3) and remanding the rent control petition to the Rent Control Court for “deciding the question whether denial of the landlord tenant relationship is bona fide or otherwise and enter a definite finding on the same after giving the sufficient opportunity to the parties to prove their contentions”. Under the impugned judgment, the learned appellate authority has also indicated as to what is to be done on the basis of the finding to be entered by the Rent Control Court on the question whether the denial of title is bona fide. RCR.No.3/2008 2 2. In this revision under Section 20 various grounds are raised challenging the judgment of the Appellate authority and we have heard the submissions of Sri.G. Sreekumar learned counsel for the revision petitioner and also those of the learned counsel for the respondent tenant. 3. Mr.Sreekumar submitted that the landlady is aggrieved more because of the direction of the learned appellate authority that the rent control court shall decide the bona fides or otherwise of the denial of the landlady's title. Drawing our attention to the paragraph 5 of the statement of objections filed by the tenant in the RCP and also to the ground number 3 in RCA No.23/2007 preferred by the tenant, the learned counsel submitted that the so called denial of title made by the landlady is clearly not bona fide. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent would oppose the above submissions. According to him, there is no warrant at all for interfering with the order of remand, which is passed by the appellate authority. 5. We have anxiously considered the rival submissions. We have gone through the statement of objections filed by the RCR.No.3/2008 3 respondent to the rent control petition and also the memorandum of the rent control appeal which was submitted by the tenant against the summary order of eviction passed by the rent control court. We are convinced that no serious contention of denial of landlord tenant relationship has been raised by the tenant in this case. In paragraph 5 of the statement of objections it is specifically admitted by the tenant that the building in question was taken on lease by the predecessor in interest of the tenant from the predecessor in interest of the landlady. It is contended therein that presently the business is being conducted by one Dhanalakshmi who interestingly is none other than the wife of the tenant. Of course, in the same paragraph it is also contended that no lease deed has been executed between the parties in respect of the building. Paragraph 3 of the statement of facts in RCA No.24/2004 should decide the issue in favour of the landlady. The second sentence in paragraph 3 is as follows; “There is landlord/tenant relationship between the petitioner and respondent”. The argument of the learned counsel for the respondent was RCR.No.3/2008 4 that it was by mistake that the word 'no' was omitted in that sentence. We would have accepted the submission. But the further statement in paragraph 3 will show that the tenant has stated that he was paying rent at the alleged rate of Rs.6,000/- per month and that the rent is not in arrears as alleged. As already stated, there is no serious denial of landlord tenant relationship. 6. Now coming to the question whether there is necessity for interfering with the direction of the appellate authority to decide the question of the tenant's liability to suffer a summary order of eviction under Section 12(3) afresh. The above question we are inclined to answer in favour of the respondent. Even as we hold that this case does not involve any bona fide denial of landlord tenant relationship between the parties, we sustain the order of remand and direct the Rent Control Court to decide the question whether the summary order of eviction passed under Section 12(3) is liable to be passed in this case. While taking such decision, the learned rent control could should have due regard to the statutory provision (Section 12) and also to the binding judicial precedents. Since the RCP is of the year RCR.No.3/2008 5 2005, the learned rent control court will expedite matters and ensure that a fresh decision is taken at the earliest. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE dpk