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 19TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 30TH MAGHA 1930 RCRev..No. 39 of 2009() ----------------------- PETITIONER /APPELLANT(S): -------------------- RAPPAI, S/O.KURUTHUKULANGARA DEVASSY, NETTISSERY VILLAGE, DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.JIJO PAUL RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS 2 TO 5/ LRS.RESPONDENT IN IA 420/04. --------------------------------------------------------------- 1. LILLY, W/O.LATE KATTOOKKARAN GEORGE, CHEMBOOKKAVU VILLAGE, DESOM,THRISSUR TALUK. THRISSUR DISTRICT 2. JOSEPH, S/O.LATE KATTOOKKARAN GEORGE, CHEMBOOKKAVU VILLAGE, DESOM,THRISSUR TALUK. THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. TONY,S/O.LATE KATTOOKKARAN GEORGE, CHEMBOOKKAVU VILLAGE, DESOM,THRISSUR TALUK. THRISSUR DISTRICT. 4. BINDU, D/O.LATE KATTOOKKARAN GEORGE, CHEMBOOKKAVU VILLAGE, DESOM,THRISSUR TALUK. THRISSUR DISTRICT. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No.39 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 19th day of February, 2009 ORDER Pius C.Kuriakose, J. We do not find any ground to admit this revision petition, which is directed against the order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority dismissing the appeal against the order passed by the Rent Control Court in I.A.No.420/2004, a petition filed by the tenant. The rent control petition was filed way back in 1998 by the respondent landlord against the petitioner invoking various grounds including the ground under Section 11(2)(b). In the context of the ground under Section 11(2)(b), the landlord relied on the rent chit dated 31/8/1974. The statement of objections was filed by the tenant raising various contentions. His contention regarding the rent chit dated 31/8/1974 was that it was not on the basis of that rent chit that the tenancy started and that the above rent chit was executed by the tenant in renewal of an earlier rent chit. In other words, through the statement of objections the revision petitioner tenant admitted R.C.R..No.39/2009 2 his jural status in the building as a tenant under the petitioner landlord. The rent control petition, which was filed in 1998, could be special listed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority for trial on 21/11/2003 and on that day the landlord was examined as PW1 and documents Exts.A1 to A4 were marked. PW1 was throughly cross examined by the learned counsel for the tenant. In the cross examination also, no challenge was made regarding the landlord's title to the subject building. The case was adjourned. Recording of the landlords' evidence was completed by 2/12/2003 and the case was posted to 10/12/2003 for tenant's evidence. From that day, the case was adjourned several times and finally to 19/1/2004 obviously on the basis of the tenant's requests for adjournment. On 19/1/2004, the tenant filed the instant I.A.420/2004 along with the additional statement of objections. It was contended through the additional statement of objections that enquiry conducted by the tenant reveals that in the assessment books of the local authority, the building stands assessed in the name of the brother of the petitioner in the rent control petition and therefore the petitioner in the rent control petition has no title to the building. In other R.C.R..No.39/2009 3 words, through the belated additional statement of objections the petitioner sought to deny the landlord's title. That application was dismissed by the Rent Control Court giving reasons and holding that the very filing of the statement of objections belatedly was a malafide exercise by the tenant with the object of protracting the proceedings. The Rent Control Appellate Authority also concurred with the conclusions of the Rent Control Court and dismissed the appeal filed against the order of the Rent Control Court. 2.Sri.Jijo Paul, learned counsel for the revision petitioner would address us elaborately and strenuously on the various grounds raised in the Rent Control Revision. The learned counsel submitted that the documents produced along with the I.A. by the tenant would establish that the landlord had conveyed title to his brother. It was bounden duty of the landlord to bring this relevant aspect to the notice of the Rent Control Court. But the landlord did not do so. The landlord was guilty of suppressing material facts from the Rent Control Court. The tenant, by filing the additional objection, was only trying to bring the notice of the Rent Control Court a very vital fact. The learned R.C.R..No.39/2009 4 counsel argued that apart from the question of the landlord tenant relationship between the parties to the rent control petition, the circumstance that the landlord does not have propriety title over the building in question will have a bearing on the substantial ground under section 11(3) projected in the rent control petition. In this context, the learned counsel would refer to salient portions of the Rent Control Petition. 4. The persuasive submissions of Sri.Jijo Paul notwithstanding, we are of the view that there is no illegality, irregularity or impropriety tainting the orders concurrently passed by the authorities below justifying interference under revisional jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1965. According to us, the Rent Control Appeal itself was not maintainable in law in as much as the same was directed against an interlocutory order of merely procedural nature. We feel that the Rent Control Appellate Authority could have dismissed the rent control appeal at the threshold itself giving liberty to the appellant to raise the grounds therein, if so advised, as grounds in the appeal which the tenant may file in the event of the final order of the Rent Control Court coming R.C.R..No.39/2009 5 against the tenant. As for the merits, it is to be understood that title which is envisaged under the second proviso to Section 11 (1), is not essentially the propriety title, but the landlord's entitlement to receive the rent from the tenant. In the instant case by admitting the rent chit relied on by the landlord in the rent control petition and by paying rent to the landlord on the strength of that rent chit the tenant has recognized the petitioner in the rent control petition as his landlord. Such a tenant will not be entitled to deny the landlord's title within the meaning of second proviso to Section 11(1). Denial by such a tenant will be malafide. As for the argument of Sri.Jijo Paul that the situation of the propriety title of the building standing in the name of the landlord's brother will have a bearing on the substantive ground of eviction sought for in the Rent Control Petition, we are of the view that the impugned orders and our judgment confirming them will not stand in the way of the petitioner highlighting all relevant aspects before the Rent Control Court and taking advantage of such aspects. Challenge against the impugned orders fails and the Rent Control Revision will stand dismissed. The Rent Control Court is R.C.R..No.39/2009 6 directed to hear both sides and dispose of the rent control petition at the earliest and at any rate within three weeks of receiving a copy of this judgment. It is needless to mention that the court will not be influenced by the impugned orders or by our judgment confirming the same while taking final decision in the rent control petition. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE dpk