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 4TH DECEMBER 2009 / 13TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 RCRev..No. 289 of 2009() ------------------------ RCA.21/2006 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHROITY ,ERNAKULAM RCP.33/2003 of RENT CONTROL COURT, KOCHI. .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------------------ P.M.MOHAMMED ALI, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.MOIDU, FRUIT MERCHANT, CC.V/414, NEW ROAD, KOCHI-682 002. BY ADV. SRI.SHAJI THANKAPPAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------ V.H.RAFEEQUE, S/O.V.A.HAMZA, AGED 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT C.C.23/576 A, PALLURUTHY, KOCHI-682 006. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A. NO.3503/2009 IN RCR NO.289/2009 DISMISSED 4/12/2009 SD/- PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. SD/- K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No. 289 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 4th day of December, 2009 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The respondent in the Rent Control Petition, alleged by the landlord to be his tenant, is the revision petitioner. Preliminary objection raised by the revision petitioner to the Rent Control Petition was that there is no landlord tenant relationship between him and the petitioner in the RCP. It was contended that the Rent Control Court does not have jurisdiction in view of Section 85 of the Wakf Act. It was also contended that the issue as to whether the respondent herein(petitioner in the RCP) is the owner landlord is being examined by this court in RSA No.484/2009. The Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority held that the denial of landlord's title by the revision petitioner is not bona fide relying mainly on the decision of the Munsiff Court, as confirmed by the court of first appeal, that the petitioner in the RCP is the landlord and is entitled for a decree R.C.R.No.289/2009 2 of injunction restraining the revision petitioner, his tenant, from effecting alternations to the building. 2. Sri.Shaji Thankappan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that WOS No.43/2009 is pending before the Wakf Tribunal. As regards the suit decided by the Civil Court, the learned counsel submitted that the Wakf Board, a necessary party, is not a party to that suit and hence judgment in that suit will not bind the Wakf Board. 3. A Division Bench of this court in Aboobacker v. Girija (1995 (1) KLT 553) has laid down the norms to be followed by the Rent Control Court for deciding whether a plea of denial of title raised by the tenant in a given case in terms of proviso to sub section (1) of Section 11 is bona fide. The Bench held that in order that the plea of denial of title is held to be bona fide the Rent Control Court should be satisfied that there are strong or at least substantial grounds or sufficient materials in support of the person raising the plea and that the chances of the plea being upheld by the civil court must be fairly on the higher side. Ext.A6 suit(O.S. No.484/1997) was instituted by the respondent for setting up the landlord tenant relationship between him and R.C.R.No.289/2009 3 the revision petitioner and alleging that the revision petitioner is unauthorisedly going about altering Ext.A8. That suit was contested by the revision petitioner taking the plea that the respondent is not the landlord and that the respondent is not entitled to get injunction against the revision petitioner. It was also contended that the court did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit in view of Section 85 of the Wakf Act. That suit was decided after a full fledged trial repelling the contentions of the revision petitioner and decree as prayed for by the respondent was passed. The revision petitioner preferred appeal (A.S. No.20/2007) which was dismissed by the Appellate Court confirming the findings of the trial court. It is true that the revision petitioner has filed RSA before this court challenging the appellate judgment. That RSA is yet to be admitted by this court. When the bona fides of the denial of title and plea on exclusion of jurisdiction raised by the petitioner is examined in the light of the principles laid down by the Division Bench in Aboobacker's case (Supra) (with which we are in agreement), we do not find any infirmity with the view concurrently entered by the authorities below that the denial of title raised by the revision R.C.R.No.289/2009 4 petitioner is not bona fide. We dismiss the RCR. However, we make it clear that any order of eviction, which may be passed against the revision petitioner, will be subject to the judgment to be passed by this court in the RSA. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE dpk