IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 11TH DECEMBER 2009 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 RCRev..No. 299 of 2009() ------------------------ RCA.51/2009 of DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD E.A.496/2009 IN E.P. 267/2008 IN RCP.24/2005 of RENT CONTROL COURT, CHITTUR .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/CLAIM PETITIONER/NON-PARTY ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FATHIMA BEEVI, W/O.ABBAS & D/O.IBRAHIM, LAKSHAM VEEDU, THAZHE MANGOTTIL, PUDUNAGARAM PO, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K. SRI.LIJU. M.P RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS & RESPONDENTS ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1. ANWARBASHA, S/O.MUHAMMED YUSAF, KIZHAKKETHARA, KODUVAYUR AMSOM, CHITTUR TALUK. 2. KAJAHUSSAIN, S/O.MUHAMMED HANEEFA RAWTHER, CHENA VEEDU, KIZHAKKETHARA, KODUVAYUR AMSOM, CHITTUR TALUK. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ R.C.R. NO: 299 OF 2009 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th December, 2009. O R D E R PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, J. Under challenge in this RCR filed under Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965 is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the order passed by the Munsiff's Court, Chittur in E.A.496/09 in E.P.267/08 in RCP 24/2005. The R.C.P was filed by the first respondent herein seeking to evict the second respondent herein inter alia on the ground of cessation of occupation under Clause (v) of Sub Section 4 of Section 11. Even though second respondent resisted the RCP before the Control Court, before the Rent Control Appellate Authority and also before this Court raising all possible contentions including the contention that the petitioner in the RCP has no title to evict him, all his contentions were repelled by the authorities under statute and also by this Court. The judgment of this Court in RCR 70/2009 confirming the order of eviction one among us (Pius C Kuriakose, J) was a party. It is some two months after the judgment of this Court in RCR 70/2009, that the claim was lodged by the revision petitioner. The RCR 299/2009 2 claim was that the original tenant in the building was one Muhammed Ibrahim, the father of the revision petitioner and that being the legal heir of Muhammed Ibrahim, the revision petitioner has tenancy rights over the building and was a necessary party to any proceedings for eviction. Rent Control Court adjudicated the claim and found that the claim was not sustainable. It was found that there was no evidence to hold that the petitioner was having any independent right in the building. The revision petitioner filed a revision petition under Section 14 of Act 2 of 1965. Later the petitioner filed an interlocutory application in the above revision requesting that the revision may be converted as an appeal, being under the impression that a revision under Section 14 may not be maintainable. That application was granted and it was accordingly that RCA 51/2009 was registered by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Palakkad. One of the contentions seriously urged before the Rent Control Appellate Authority was that the original eviction order was passed not by the Rent Control Court but by the “Rent Controller”. The above technical contention was rightly repelled by the learned Appellate Authority placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in Narayani v. District Judge {1991(1) KLT 646} which RCR 299/2009 3 interestingly was relied on before the Appellate Authority by the revision petitioner also, in support of the argument that the eviction order was passed by an authorised person. 2. The Appellate Authority proceeded to examine the merits of the grounds raised in the appeal and by the impugned judgment has held that there was no warrant for interfering with order of the Execution Court dismissing the claim (obstruction) petition filed by the revision petitioner. The Appellate Authority noticed that none of the documents produced before the Execution Court by the revision petitioner could prove that the revision petitioner was having any independent right over the building as claimed by him. 3. Having gone through the judgment of the Appellate Authority, we do not find any infirmity about the reasoning of the Appellate Authority for approving the order which was impugned before that Authority. In this Court the revision petitioner has produced a fresh document to support the claim that it was her father Muhammed Ibrahim who was in possession of the building as tenant under the then landlord. We are not impressed by the above document either, since we find that the same pertains to a period of time more than 25 years prior to the point of time when RCR 299/2009 4 the RCP was instituted. In fact when RCR 70/2009 against the order of eviction was being considered by this Court, this Court directed the learned counsel who was appearing for the second respondent-tenant to make available for perusal copy of property tax assessment register maintained by the local authority in respect of the building pertaining to the relevant period. One or two adjournments were granted to the Advocate for production of the document. Thereafter on 17.6.2009 it was submitted by the learned Advocate that going by the property tax assessment register relating to the building governing the relevant period, the owner of the building is the petitioner in the RCP and the status of the second respondent (revision petitioner in RCR 70/2009) was that of only an occupant-tenant. 4. We do not think that even if the document produced by the revision petitioner before this Court were available before the learned Appellate Authority the decision of the Appellate Authority would have been different. 5. We notice another aspect of the matter. The order impugned in RCA 51/2009 was an order passed by the learned Munsiff in E.A.496/2009 in E.P.267/2008 in RCP 24/2005. The rent RCR 299/2009 5 control appeal would not have been maintainable against that order, since rent control appeals under Section 18 of Act 2 of 1965 are contemplated only against orders passed by Rent Control Courts. In this context we notice our own judgment in Ravi Varma Raja v. Munsiff's Court {2009(4) KLT 870} wherein we have taken the view that orders passed by the Munsiff's Courts on claim petitions and obstruction petitions filed in proceedings for execution of eviction orders passed by the Rent Control Courts will not fall within the ambit of the proviso to Section 14 of Act 2 of 1965. The revision petition filed by the petitioner before the District Court under the proviso to Section 14 against the order in Claim Petition No: 496/2009 was certainly not maintainable. The remedy of the revision petitioner was not to file a Rent Control Appeal before the Appellate Authority. His remedy if at all, was before the regular Appellate Court in terms of Rule 103 of Order 21 CPC . In that view of the matter also we are not inclined to entertain this revision. We dismiss this revision in limine. However, considering the very fervent appeal of Mr. Sajan Varghese for time, there will be a direction to the Execution Court not to effect delivery of the premises which are subject matter of the execution RCR 299/2009 6 proceedings till 5.1.2010. Return the certified copies of the judgment impugned and the order impugned before the Appellate Authority as well as the originals of the documents produced along with this revision, to Advocate Sajan Varghese immediately. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE Judge K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. --------------------------------------- L.A.A.NO: --------------------------------------- JUDGMENT Dated: