IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD MARCH 2011 / 2ND CHAITHRA 1933 RCRev..No. 74 of 2011(E) ---------------------------- RCA.23/2008 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT-I(RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY), PALAKKAD RCP.39/2007 of ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT, PALAKKAD .................... APPELLANT/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------ K. VASU, S/O G.K.GUPTAN, MINI MANDIRAM, NEAR JAIN TEMPLE, THATTATHARA ROAD, VADAKKANTHARA, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.A.R.GANGADAS RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: -------------------------------------------------- V. HARIKRISHNAN, S/O K. VENUGOPAL, 'HARISREE', DARSANA COLONY, CHUNNAMBUTHARA, VADAKKANTHARA, PALAKKAD, REP. BY POWER OF ATTORNEY K. VENUGOPAL, S/O G.K. GUPTAN, 'HARISREE', DARSANA COLONY, CHUNNAMBUTHARA, VADAKKANTHARA, PALAKKAD - 678001. ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON FOR R1 SRI.JIBU P THOMAS FOR R1 SRI.P.S.APPU FOR R1 SRI.A.R.NIMOD FOR R1 SRI.C.A.ANOOP FOR R1 THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/03/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & N. K. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ R. C. R. No.74 of 2011 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 23rd day of March, 2011 ORDER Pius C. Kuriakose, J Under challenge in this revision filed by the tenant is the judgment of the Appellate Authority confirming the order of eviction which was passed by the Rent Control Court against him on the grounds of arrears of rent under Section 11(2)(b) and re-construction under Section 11(4) (iv). It was relying on a rental arrangement evidenced by Ext.A5 that the RCP was instituted by the landlord. The landlord sought for eviction on the grounds of arrears of rent under Section 11(2)(b); bona fide need for own occupation under Section 11(3) and need for re-construction under Section 11(4)(iv). All the grounds were contested to at the time of trial. The landlord conceded that eviction R. C. R. No.74 of 2011 -2- under Section 11(3) is not pressed. One of the contentions raised by the revision petitioner was that the document of title under which the landlord claims ownership over the building is a sham document or rather a benami document executed by his father in the name of his eldest son, Sri.Venugopalan who is the father of the respondent for the benefit of all his children. Incidentally it was also contended that there is no landlord-tenant relationship between the parties. 2. In the enquiry before the Rent Control Court the evidence consisted that of PW1, the father of the landlord and Exts.A1 to A9. On the side of the revision petitioner the evidence was nil. The Rent Control Court on evaluating the evidence would first decide that the contentions raised by the revision petitioner against the title of the landlord and against the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship are only to be repelled. On evaluating the evidence it was held R. C. R. No.74 of 2011 -3- that the eviction ground under Section 11(2)(b) and under Section 11(4)(iv) stood establish. 3. The learned Appellate Authority considered appeal preferred by the revision petitioner. That authority re- appraised the entire evidence and concurred with all the conclusions of the Rent Control Court. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. 4. In this revision various grounds are raised challenging the judgment of the Appellate Authority. Sri.A.R.Gangadas, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner addressed very strenuous arguments before us based on the grounds. Sri.Gangadas submitted at the very outset that RSA No.376/11 has been preferred by the revision petitioner against the verdict of the civil court which was in favour of the respondent/landlord. According to Sri.Gangadas the learned Appellate Authority relied on the appellate judgment and turned down the revision R. C. R. No.74 of 2011 -4- petitioner's contention based on title. According to the learned counsel, it is only appropriate that this RCR and the RSA be heard and decided together. Sri.Gangadas would attack the eviction order on merits also. According to him, the judgment of the Appellate Authority is vitiated by so many illegalities, irregularities and improprieties justifying interference in revision. 5. Sri.V.Chitambaresh, the learned senior counsel for the respondent submitted that though it is true that the learned Appellate Authority has referred to the judgment of the civil court, the suit before the civil court is not a comprehensive suit for title. It is a simple suit for injunction to restrain the revision petitioner from doing repair work in the building. It has nothing to do with the title. Sri.Chitambaresh submitted that it cannot be said that there is a bona fide denial of landlord's title. What was challenged was proprietory title. Despite that challenge since the R. C. R. No.74 of 2011 -5- revision petitioner set up an agreement for sale it can be found that the challenge on title is not serious. Ext.A5 proves the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship. To whatever evidence is adduced by the landlord there is not even formal counter evidence. 6. We have very anxiously considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. We have gone through the judgment of the Appellate Authority and the order of the Rent Control Court. The short question which arises before us is whether the judgment of the Appellate Authority confirming the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court warrants interference within the contours of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 20. According to us, the above question can be answered only against the revision petitioner. We are not at all impressed by the contentions raised by the revision petitioner touching the title of the landlord. First of all as far as rent control R. C. R. No.74 of 2011 -6- proceedings are concerned it is not the proprietary title over the building that is important. What is important is only the landlord's entitlement to receive the rent or the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship. Ext.A5 is one document relied on in the Rent Control Petition and in the evidence by the landlord, for which there is not even a formal counter evidence is adduced by the revision petitioner. In the absence of even formal counter evidence, the authorities below cannot be faulted at all for having concluded that there exists a landlord-tenant relationship between the parties. Though we are not concerned with the question of proprietary title we do find merit in the submission of Sri.Chitambaresh that party who denied the title and at the same time sets up an agreement for sale executed by the landlord, is practically conceding the landlord's proprietary title also. At any rate as the finding entered by the statutory authorities regarding the existence of the eviction ground R. C. R. No.74 of 2011 -7- are based on evidence available on record we do not find any infirmity about them. The revision petition necessarily has to fail and the eviction order stands confirmed. At the same time, the last submission of Sri.Gangadas, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that a reasonably long period of time be given to the tenant for surrendering the premises has some appeal to us. Hence, even as we dismiss the RCR confirming the eviction order passed by the Rent Control Court, there will be a direction to the execution court to keep in abeyance all proceedings for delivery till 31/12/11 subject to certain conditions. The result of the above discussion is as follows:- 7. The RCR is dismissed confirming the order passed under Section 11(2)(b) and 11(4)(iv). The order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court under Section 11(2)(b) can be got vacated by making requisite deposit under Section 11(2)(c) and filing application within two months R. C. R. No.74 of 2011 -8- from today. Order of eviction passed under Section 11(4) (iv) will not be executed till 31/12/11 subject to the following conditions:- 8. Revision petitioner shall file an affidavit before the execution court or the Rent Control Court as the case may be within three weeks from today undertaking to give peaceful surrender of the building to the respondent on or before 31/12/11 and undertaking further that arrears of rent as found by the Rent Control Court will be paid off within two months and that occupation charges at the existing rent rate will also be paid without fail on the first of every month. The revision petitioner will get the benefit of time granted as above only if the affidavit as directed above is filed on time and the undertakings contained therein are honoured. 9. We clarify that the respondent will be bound to carry out the re-construction and allot more or less equal area to the revision petitioner as provided under the third proviso to R. C. R. No.74 of 2011 -9- Section 11(4)(iv) of Act 2 of 1965 within the time frame set by the Appellate Authority. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE N. K. BALAKRISHNAN JUDGE kns/-