IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 14TH JUNE 2011 / 24TH JYAISHTA 1933 RCRev..No. 228 of 2011() ------------------------ RCA.74/2008 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, ALAPPUZHA RCP.26/2006 of RENT CONTROL COURT, CHERTHALA .................... REV.PETITIONER/APPELLANT/COUNTER PETITIONER --------------------------------------------------------------- AJITH RAJU @ AJAYAN, S/O.RAJU, AGED 41 YEARS, RESIDING AT DUSAM PARAMBIL HOUSE, CHANDIROOR MURI, AROOR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.G.P.SHINOD SRI.RAM MOHAN.G. SRI.MANU V. RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------ SANIL KUMAR P.T., S/O.THANKAPPAN, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, PUTHENPARAMBIL, ARPPUKKARA, ARPPUKKARA VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No. 228 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 14th day of June, 2011 O R D E R Balakrishnan, J. The tenant is in revision. The landlord claimed eviction under Section 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act. The revision petitioner denied the title of the landlord contending that the entire property measuring 15 cents and the building was agreed to be purchased from one Abdul Kareem(RW2), who was the owner of the property, for a total consideration of Rs.25,00,000/-, out of which a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- was paid in instalments. The balance amount of Rs.10,00,000/- was to be paid. The landlord approached the Anugraha Financiers of which Santhosh and Alex were partners. Ext.A5 sale deed dated 21/6/2005 was executed by RW2 in favour of the Financiers as security for the loan amount agreed to be advanced by the Anugraha Financiers. The petitioner's contention is that the amount was to be repaid with interest at the rate of Rs.60% RCR.No.228/2011 2 p.a. In order to get the loan amount, as directed by the financiers, Ext.A5 sale deed happened to be executed in the name of the respondent. It was further contended that some signed blank stamp papers and the signed blank cheque leaves were also obtained by the financiers and making use of one of those blank signed stamp papers Ext.A1 agreement was concocted by the financiers in favour of the respondent herein. This contention of the tenant was resisted by the landlord respondent. 2. Before the court below, on behalf of the revision petitioner RW1 and RW2 were examined and Exts.B1 to B2 were marked. On behalf of the landlord Ext.A1 to A6 were marked. The landlord was also examined as PW1. The learned Rent Control Court after analysing the evidence found that the denial of title put forward by the revision petitioner is not bona fide. Accepting the evidence given by PW1, it was found that the need put forward by him for occupation of the petition schedule building for staring a prone peeling and marketing business is also bona fide. The learned Appellate Authority after reappreciating the evidence upheld the decision of the Rent RCR.No.228/2011 3 Control Court. 3. Sri.G.Ram Mohan, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would submit that a perusal of Ext.A5 itself make it clear that it was concocted by the respondent making use of the signed blank stamped paper given by the landlord at the time of availing the loan from Anugraha Financiers. But it is to be noted that the petitioner did not mount the witness box to deny the execution of Ext.A1 or to prove that Ext.A1 was only a sham document. Pointing out these and other factors, the learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the denial of title put forward by the revision petitioner is not a bona fide. We, exercising revisional jurisdiction find no reason to upset that finding. Since there is concurrent finding that the need projected by the landlord is bona fide, the order of eviction passed by the learned Appellate Authority confirming the order of eviction passed by the learned Rent Control Court is only to be confirmed. The result, therefore, is that the revision fails and the same is dismissed. We make it clear that the observation regarding the title set up by the revision petitioner made by this court RCR.No.228/2011 4 would not preclude the revision petitioner from perusing his remedy if any available to him under the law. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE dpk