IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI THURSDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2009 / 25TH ASHADHA 1931 RCRev..No. 60 of 2009() ----------------------- ( RCA.NO.15/2005 OF I ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RCP.NO.43/2004 OF RENT CONTROL COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM) REVN.PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/COUNTER PETITIONERS ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SULAIHA BEEVI W/O. MUHAMMED SALI, T.C.NO.43/2380, SALIM VIHAR, MANACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. FAROOK S/O. MUHAMMED SALI, T.C.NO.43/2380, SALIM VIHAR, MANACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------ K.P.RENJITH S/O. PADMANABHA PILLAI, SREE PADMANABHA MEERA NAGAR, KANNETHUMUKKU, THYCAUD VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.RAM MOHAN.G. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.C.R.No.60 OF 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 16th day of July, 2009 ORDER Pius.C.Kuriakose, J. The tenant is in revision and he impugns the order of eviction concurrently passed against him on the ground under Clause (iii) of Sub Section 4 of Section 11 of Act 2 of 1965. The tenant denied the title of the landlord through his objections. According to him, the land was originally government purampoke and the same was assigned to his father Muhammed Sali. He contended that it is his father Mohammed Sali who put up the building and he is in possession of the building as owner. Thus he denied not only the landlord-tenant relationship between the parties, but also claimed that he is having propriety title over the land and the building. 2. The Rent Control Court formulated a point as to whether the denial of the landlord's title by the tenant is bonafide. The Rent Control Court enquired into the merits of the grounds in the RCP also. The other grounds for eviction invoked were arrears of rent, bonafide RCR.No.60/09 2 own occupation and negligent user of the building. The evidence before the reference court consisted of Exts.A1 to A26 and the oral testimonies of PW1 and PW2 on the side of the landlord while the same on the side of the tenant ( the revision petitioner) consisted of Exts.B1 to B10 and the oral evidence of CPW1. On considering the preliminary point, the rent control court concluded that the denial of the landlord's title by the tenant is not bonafide. Considering the various grounds raised that court found that the landlord is entitled to get an order of eviction under Clause (iii) of Sub Section (4) of Section 11. As regards this ground, it was found that landlord's case that the tenant is having possession of another building reasonably sufficient for his requirements was not specifically denied by the tenant. The appellate authority would confirm all the findings of the rent control court and ordered eviction under Section 11(4)(iii) only. In fact there was no appeal by the landlord against the denial of eviction on the other grounds sought for. 3. In this revision, the respondent in the RCP impugns not only the decision of the courts below that the denial of the landlord's RCR.No.60/09 3 title is not bonafide, but also the order of eviction passed under clause (iii) of Sub Section (4) of Section 11. 4. We have heard the submissions of Sri.G.Sudheer, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and those of Sri.Ram Mohan.G., learned counsel for the respondent. Sri.G.Sudheer gave more thrust to the contention that the landlord respondent does not have title over the building. Sri.Sudheer took us to the various documents produced by the revision petitioners before the courts below. He also drew our attention to a few documents produced by the revision petitioners in this court. We are not inclined to admit the documents produced by the revision petitioners in this court since we find that the rent control court had afforded all necessary opportunity to the revision petitioners for adducing evidence and the revision petitioners do not have a ground that they were deprived of any such opportunity. In fact, the documents produced also in our opinion will not improve the revision petitioners' case. The revision petitioners' case is that the land was originally purampoke and that it was the father of second petitioner who put up the building on the basis of permit issued by the local RCR.No.60/09 4 authority. The Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority considered this case in the light of the evidence adduced by the revision petitioners and found that the documents produced by the revision petitioners do not pertain to the plot upon which the petition schedule building is situated. In our view, the question of proprietary title over the land upon which the building is constructed does not have much relevance in rent control proceedings. In rent control proceedings it is the landlord-tenant relationship in respect of the building that is more important. If at all title is important , it is the title in respect of the building and not in respect of the land upon which it is constructed. It is seen that, in the property tax assessment books in the Thiruvananthapuram Corporation, the respondent is shown as the owner of the building. Section 26 of the Rent Control Act lays down that entries contained in the assessment books of the local authority shall be accepted by the authorities under the Act as evidence of the facts recorded therein. Thus the assessment book of the Thiruvananthapuram Corporation which discloses that the respondent is the owner of the building and that the occupation of the revision RCR.No.60/09 5 petitioner is only that of a tenant has considerable probative value. It is taking into account this aspect of the matter also, the Rent Control Appellate Authority which under the statutory scheme is the final court on facts has taken a decision against the revision petitioners. 5. Having regard to the contours of our jurisdiction under Section 20 which is revisional, we do not find any warrant for interfering with the impugned judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the order of the Rent Control Court. We do not find any illegality, irregularity or impropriety to the extent of justifying invocation of revisional jurisdiction. As for the order of eviction passed under clause (iii) of Section 11(4), as rightly noticed by the appellate authority, the landlord's version that the tenant is in possession of another building, the door number of which is mentioned in the rent control petition, is not specifically denied in evidence. The revision petitioner did not assert in evidence that he does not have possession of any other building. The title over the building possessed by the tenant is not relevant. What is relevant is only possession . Once possession of other building is admitted either expressly or by non RCR.No.60/09 6 traverse or by non-denial in evidence, then it is for the tenant to adduce evidence and show that the building is not sufficient for his requirements. The Appellate Authority concluded that an order of eviction is liable to be passed against the tenant under Section 11(4) (iii). In our opinion, the legislative objective underlying Clause (iii) of Sub Section (4) of Section 11 is that in a situation where there is acute accommodation shortage, the tenants should not be allowed the luxury of having more buildings at their disposal than what is necessary for their requirements. 6. Sri.Sudheer lastly submitted that the land acquisition proceedings have now been initiated for acquiring the building which is subject matter of the RCR. According to him, notice has been received by his client from the land acquisition authority and as per that notice entire compensation is to be paid to his client only. The above submission was opposed by Sri.Ram Mohan. According to him, no acquisition proceedings have been initiated in respect of the building which is subject matter of the RCR or in respect of the land upon which the building is constructed. We are not going to settle this issue in this RCR.No.60/09 7 revision petition, since, under this jurisdiction, we are called upon to examine only the correctness of the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the order of the Rent Control Court. We do not find any warrant for interference with the Appellate Authority's judgment. 7. Sri.Sudheer now requested for grant of one year's time to vacate the premises. Sri.Ram Mohan would oppose this request tooth and nail. According to Sri.Ram Mohan contract rent at the rate of Rs. 4000/- is in arrears since 1998 onwards. He submitted that even if this court is inclined to grant time, it may be on condition that the entire arrears of rent alleged by the landlord is paid by the revision petitioners. We are not inclined to grant so much of time as sought for by Sri.Sudheer. We are not inclined either to impose the condition suggested by Sri.Ram Mohan in this case where eviction order sought for under Section 11(2)(b) was declined by the authorities on the reason that landlord did not prove the rate of rent. At the same time, we notice that the building has a carpet area of atleast 800 sq.ft. and it is situated in Chalay Bazar in Thiruvananthapuram city. We are sure RCR.No.60/09 8 that if the building is let out today, the rent to be fetched will be much more than Rs. 4000 per month. However, we fix occupational charges payable by the revision petitioners as condition for being given time for surrender at Rs. 3,000/- per month with effect from August 2009. The occupational charges shall be payable on or before the 5th of every month commencing from 05/08/2009. 8. The result of the RCR is as follows : The RCR will stand dismissed. There will be a direction to the execution court not to order and effect delivery of the petition schedule building till 31/01/2010 subject to the following conditions ; The revision petitioners shall file an affidavit before the execution court or the Rent Control Court within three weeks from today undertaking to peacefully surrender the petition schedule building to the respondent on or before 30/01/2010 and undertaking further through the same affidavit that they will pay occupational charges to the revision petitioner at the rate of Rs.3000/- on or before the 5th of every month RCR.No.60/09 9 commencing from 5th August 2009 till the date of surrender. The revision petitioners will get the benefit of time granted under this order only if they file the affidavit on time. In the event of any default by the revision petitioners in the matter of payment of amount ordered by us, the execution court will be justified in ordering delivery forthwith. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI JUDGE sv. RCR.No.60/09 10