IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2009 / 27TH JYAISHTA 1931 RCRev..No. 70 of 2009() ----------------------- RCA.9/2007 of II ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD RCP.24/2005 of MUNSIFF COURT, CHITTUR .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/TENANT -------------------------------------------------------- KAJA HUSSAIN, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED HANEEFA,RESIDING AT CHENIYIL HOUSE, KIZHEKKATHARA, KODUVAYUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.MADHU RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------ ANVARBASHA, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED YUSUF,RESIDING AT KIZHEKKETHALA, KODUVAYUR, PALAKKAD. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No.70 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 17th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. By our orders dated 13/3/2009, 23/3/2009 and 25/6/2009 sufficient opportunities were granted to the revision petitioner to produce documents on the basis of which he has instituted suit for declaration of title. He was directed to produce copy of the property tax assessment extract maintained by the local authority in respect of the building in question, so that it could be verified whether there is any substance in the contention of the revision petitioner that it is he and not the landlord petitioner in the rent control petition, who is having title to the building. 2. Today Sri.Madhu, learned counsel for the revision petitioner confessed that, going by the property tax assessment register in the local authority the ownership of the building is with the petitioner in the rent control petition and that the revision petitioner's status is only that of a tenant. The property tax assessment register maintained by the local authority enjoy RCR.No.70/2009 2 presumptions under Section 26 of the Rent Control Act regarding the correctness of the entries therein. 3. Having gone through the judgment of the rent control court as well as the rent control appellate authority, we are of the view that the finding entered by those courts that denial by the tenant of the landlord's title in terms of sub section (1) of Section 11 is not bona fide. It is trite by decisions of this court that while considering the question whether the denial of title raised by the tenant in the context of clause 2 of section 11(1) is bona fide, the question to be considered is whether the tenant has got reasonable chance of success in the event of the issue being relegated to the civil court. Since the property tax assessment register itself shows that the ownership of the building is with the petitioner in the RCP and that the status of the revision petitioner is that of tenant only, it is very unlikely that even if the issue is relegated to the civil court, the revision petitioner will succeed. After all in the rent control proceedings it is not proprietary title that is important, but only title as landlord. Having gone through the impugned judgment, we are of the view that there is no warrant for correcting the impugned RCR.No.70/2009 3 judgment under this revisional jurisdiction of this court under Section 20 of the Act. 4. As his last request, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought for one years' time on the reason that the revision petitioner is completely paralysed and is unable to move. We certainly have some sympathy for the revision petitioner. But it will not be proper on our part to grant time beyond 31/12/2009. 5. Result, therefore, is as follows; The revision petition is dismissed confirming the order of eviction passed by the rent control court as well as the rent control appellate authority. But, the execution court is directed not to order and effect delivery of the petition schedule building till 31/12/2009 subject to the following conditions; i). The revision petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.2,500/- towards his rent arrears liability to the respondent landlord within one month from today and produce receipt before this court. ii). The revision petitioner shall files an affidavit before the execution RCR.No.70/2009 4 court stating that he will peacefully surrender the petition schedule building to the respondent landlord on or before 30/12/2009. Affidavit as directed above shall be filed within three weeks from today. Sri.Madhu, learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that suit is pending in respect of the petition schedule building and this judgment will not cause any prejudice to the contention of the revision petitioner in that suit. It is needless to mention that the civil court, which is in seizin of the suit, should not be unduly influenced by this judgment while deciding the suit. It is also clarified that unless both the conditions incorporated herein are complied with, the petitioner will not get benefit of time granted by us. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE dpk