IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARILAL THURSDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2011 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 RCRev..No. 447 of 2011() ------------------------------- RCA.12/2008 of ADDL.DISTRICT RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, ALAPPUZHA. RCP.45/2004 of RENT CONTROL COURT, ALAPPUZHA .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENT : ---------------------------------------- RAJAMMA, AGED 65 YEARS, W/O.MOHANAN NAIR, UMAPARAMBIL, VELLAKKINAR WARD, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADVS. SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR SMT.BHAVANA VELAYUDHAN SMT.T.J.SEEMA RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------ SURESH KUMAR, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.LATE N.SUKUMARAN, KAILASAM, ALISSERY WARD, ALAPPUZHA-688005. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ln PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.HARILAL,JJ ------------------------------------------------- R.C.R No.447 of 2011 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of December, 2011 O R D E R Pius C. Kuriakose, J Under challenge in this revision filed by the respondent in R.C.P No.45/2004 is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Alappuzha confirming the order passed by the Rent Control Court finding that the denial of title raised by the petitioner under proviso to Section 11(1) of the Act is not bonafide. As directed by us Sri.S.Sanal Kumar the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed before us a copy of the objection, which the revision petitioner has filed to the Rent Control Petition where eviction was sought on the grounds under Section 11(2) (b) and 11(3). The objection shows that the revision petitioner has raised a contention that she is a Kudikidappukari entitled to purchase under Section 80(B) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act and that their application for Kudikidappu is also pending. Alternatively she had also raised a plea of denial of the respondent's title. The Rent Control Court considered the question whether the denial of landlord's title R.C.R No.447 of 2011 2 raised by the petitioner is bonafide, as was necessary in terms of the proviso to Section 11(1). The parties were allowed to let in evidence also in an enquiry conducted by the Rent Control Court. That Court on evaluating the evidence which consisted of Exts.A9 and A10 and the unrebutted oral of evidence of the landlord as PW1 would hold that the denial of title is bonafide. Accordingly, the Rent Control Court held keeping in mind the principles laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Aboobacker V. Girija (1995)(1) KLT 553) that the denial of title is not bonafide. The appellate authority under the impugned judgment has confirmed the above order of the Rent Control Court. The merits of the eviction grounds raised are yet to be adjudicated. 2. The one point which was highlighted before us by Sri.Sanal Kumar was that the authorities are yet to consider the merits of the contention of Kudikidappu raised by the petitioner. On going through the appellate authority's judgment it is seen that the O.A filed by the petitioner was dismissed. According to Mr.Sanal Kumar the dismissal of the O.A was not on merits. The dismissal was actually on the reason that the proper land owner is not impleaded. According to Mr.Sanal Kumar the order R.C.R No.447 of 2011 3 dismissing the O.A has not attained finality. An appeal has been preferred before the Land Reforms Appellate Authority as A.A. No.40 of 2004. According to Mr.Sanal Kumar there is every likelihood that the appeal will be allowed and it will be found that the petitioner is a Kudikidappukari entitled to purchase the land around the building towards her Kudikidappu rights. He requested that even if this Court is not interfering with the impugned judgment there should be a direction to the Rent Control Court to consider the plea of Kudikidappu. 3. On going through the judgment of the appellate authority it is seen that the learned appellate authority has taken a view that the plea of denial of title raised by the petitioner is not bonafide because of the inconsistent plea that she is a Kudikidappukari taken by her elsewhere in the statement of objections. The submissions of Mr.Sanal Kumar that the issue of Kudikidappu is not specifically addressed by the Rent Control Court and the appellate authority seems to be correct. But then in the present jurisdiction we are called upon to examine the illegality, irregularity and impropriety of the concurrent decision taken by the two authorities that the plea of denial of title is not bonafide. According to us the above decision does not suffer R.C.R No.447 of 2011 4 from any illegality, irregularity or impropriety. We confirm the impugned judgment as well as the order of the Rent Control Court. It is open to the petitioner to request the learned Rent Control Court to address the plea raised by the petitioner of Kudikidappu rights also, while considering and deciding the other issues arising in the R.C.P. With the above observations we dismiss this R.C.R. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE K.HARILAL JUDGE ab