IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI FRIDAY, THE 16TH JANUARY 2009 / 26TH POUSHA 1930 CRP.No. 2694 of 2002() ---------------------- RCA.119/1999 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THRISSUR RCP.38/1998 of RENT CONTROLLER,CHAVAKKAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/PETITIONER ----------------------------------------------------- DAINUNI KONGANOM VEETTIL THERUVATH, KADAPPURAM AMSOM, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.G.UNNIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT: RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------ RAMU S/O. ASARI VELAYUDHAN, P.O. MADU, VIA. UMANAYOOR, KADAPPURAM AMSOM, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. -------------------------------------------------- C.R.P.No.2694 OF 2002 G ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 16th DAY OF JANUARY, 2009 O R D E R PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, J. The defeated landlord in a proceeding for eviction on the ground under Section 11(2)(b) is the petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control)Act (Act 2 of 1965). The building in question belonged to the mother of the respondent and was conveyed to the petitioner under Exhibit A2 assignment deed. The mother of the respondent owned a building under Exhibit A3. The case of the landlord was that after Exhibit A2, the building was entrusted with the respondent on a rental arrangement under which the respondent became liable to pay monthly rent at the rate of Rs.200/- to the landlord. After issuing demand notice under Section 11(2)(a), the RCP was instituted for eviction, finding that there was no response to the notice. The R.C.P. Was resisted by the respondent contending that the respondent's status is not that of a tenant under the landlord. It was contended that the building in question belonged to the CRP.2694/02 -2- respondent and that Exhibit A2 assignment deed relied on by the landlord was a fraudulent document. The Rent Control Court repelled the contention of the respondent that Exhibit A2 assignment deed is a fraudulent document. That court also repelled the respondent's contention that the respondent is having title over the building. It was positively found that the landlord has come to have title by virtue of Exhibit A2 assignment deed. Nevertheless, the Rent Control Court found that the landlord had not established a landlord/tenant relationship between the parties and on that reason dismissed the R.C.P., obviously taking the view that the jural status of the respondent is that of an unauthorised occupant continuing in possession. The appellate authority also concurred with the conclusions of the Rent Control Court. The appellate authority went to the extent of observing that the jural status of the respondent is that of a permissive occupant. Thus both courts have concurrently found that the rent control petition is not maintainable and that landlord will have to approach the civil court for getting relief. 2. Though, respondent was served with notice of this CRP.2694/02 -3- revision petition, he has not entered appearance before this Court. We have heard the submissions of Shri Saneesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.Saneesh Kumar would argue that having repelled the defence case of title over the schedule property and having accepted the landlord's case of having obtained title under Exhibit A2, the courts below were not justified in not accepting the landlord's case of having given an oral lease of the schedule building to the respondent. The learned counsel would assail the finding of the appellate authority that the jural status of the respondent is that of permissive occupant. Such a finding is not based on any pleading or evidence, so submitted the learned counsel. 3. We have very anxiously considered the submissions addressed before us by Mr.Saneesh Kumar. In this jurisdiction under Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965, we do not sit in appeal over the orders passed by the authorities below. We only examine the legality, regularity and propriety of the orders. The question to be considered by us is whether the conclusions of the authorities below that the Rent Control Petition is not maintainable for the CRP.2694/02 -4- reason that no landlord-tenant relationship is established between the parties warrant interference. 4. It cannot be disputed that for maintaining a petition for eviction under Section 11 of the Act, existence of landlord-tenant relationship between the parties is a condition precedent. Exhibit B2 is a document relied on by the respondent in substantiation of his contention that the building belongs to him. In Exhibit B2, the mother of the respondent is shown as the owner and occupant of the building. Exhibit B2 pertains also to the period of commencement of the rent control petition. Under Section 26 of the Rent Control Act, the entries in documents of the nature of Exhibit B2 are to be accepted as correct for the purpose of proceedings such as rent control petitions. In other words, Exhibit B2 offers negative evidence against the claim of the landlord that there is landlord-tenant relationship between the parties. Of course, it has been found concurrently by both the courts below that the petitioner is the owner of the building by virtue of Exhibit A2. Such a finding will not automatically lead to the conclusion that the jural status of the respondent is that of a CRP.2694/02 -5- building tenant under the petitioner. The jural status of the petitioner, according to us, is either that of persons in unauthorised possession of the building belonging to the revision petitioner or that of persons in occupation as licensees, continuing in occupation on permission granted. Either way, the remedy available to the petitioner in law is either for recovery of possession on the strength of title which is conclusively declared or for a mandatory injunction commanding the respondent to vacate. If the petitioner sues for recovery of possession on the strength of the title, it will be open to the petitioner to claim damages for use and occupation also against the respondent. With the above observation, we dismiss the C.R.P., since there is no warrant for invoking the revisional jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Act in respect of the impugned orders. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn