IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN MONDAY, THE 10TH OCTOBER 2011 / 18TH ASWINA 1933 RCRev..No. 379 of 2011() ------------------------ RCA.27/2010 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY , TRIVANDRUM RCP.5/2009 of RENT CONTROL COURT,ATTINGAL .................... REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS/COUTER PETITIONERS -------------------- 1. MANGALAN, SON OF SADASIVAN, KAIPPALLY VEEDU, KADAKKAVOOR, PROPRIETOR, 'ATTINGAL TOURIST HOME' MAIN ROAD, ATTINGAL 2. KADAKKAVOOR S. SURESH, ADVOCATE, ATTINGAL. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.NIJOY SMT.C.PRABITHA RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/COUNTER PETITIONER/PETITIONER: --------------- RIJU MUKUNDAN, SON OF MUKUNDAN THEVARATHOPPU VEEDU, NEAR T.B. JUNCTION CHITTATTINKARA DESOM, AVANAVANCHERI VILLAGE 695 103. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & P.BHAVADASAN, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No. 379 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 4th day of October, 2011 O R D E R Bhavadasan, J. Under challenge in this revision filed by the tenants is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority ordering eviction against the revision petitioners/tenants on the grounds under Section 11(3), 11(2)(b) 11(4)(i) and 11(4)(iii)of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act 1965. The tenants disputed the title of the landlord over the petition schedule building. The landlord contend that the original owner assigned the petition schedule building and the property to him and accordingly he became the owner of the building. The revision petitioner/tenant contends that the petitioners has no title over the petition schedule building and there is no landlord tenant relationship between the petitioners and the landlord. The Rent Control Court on evaluating the evidence rejected the claim of RCR.No.379/2011 2 the tenants that the landlord had no title to the property in question. 2. Being aggrieved by the order of the Rent Control Court, the tenants carried the matter in appeal to the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority on reappreciating the evidence on record, concurred with all the conclusions of the Rent Control Court and dismissed the appeal. 3. Aggrieved tenants before this court. The tenants contended that the landlord has no title over the petition schedule building. It is also contended that the court below failed to note that no evidence is adduced by either parties to substantiate their pleadings. It is further contended that, relying on the documents produced by the landlord, both the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority found that the tenants has no right over the petition schedule property. 4. We heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners. We find no ground to interfere with the findings of the courts below. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. However, we make it clear that whatever we have stated herein above have been stated for the purpose of deciding this revision RCR.No.379/2011 3 and is not expected to cause any prejudice to either party in the on going suit for specific performance. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE P.BHAVADASAN,JUDGE. dpk