IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2009 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1931 RCRev..No. 300 of 2008() ------------------------ RCA.78/2008 of I ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM RCP.59/2007 of III ADDL.M.C.EKM (RENT CONTROL) .................... PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT IN RCP ---------------------------------------------------------- ANNA MAGGIE, W/O JELSON, AGED 43 YEARS, SUPER TYRES, 41/1554, BANERJI ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-18. BY ADV. SRI.C.J.JOY SMT.SHOBA NAIR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN RCP ------------------------------------------- SRI.A.S.MANI, S/O.SRI.SKARIA,XXXVI/2070, THEKUMTHALA ROAD, KALOOR, KOCHI-17. ADV. SRI.P.J.JOSEPH PANIKKASSERY FOR R1 THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No.300 OF 2008 ------------------------ Dated this the 8th day of April, 2009 ORDER Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The tenant is in revision against the order of the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority, repelling the contention of the tenant that the rent control petition is not maintainable in law for the reason that the landlord has not clearly conceded the petitioner's status in the building as his tenant. 2. We have heard submissions of Sri.C.J.Joy, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and also those of Sri. P.J.Joseph Panikkassery, learned counsel for the respondent landlord. We were taken through by Sri.C.J.Joy to the rent control petition, particularly its paragraph 3. Sri.Joy certainly is correct when he submits that in paragraph 3 the case of the landlord is that the petitioner is not a tenant, but is only an unauthorised occupant. The Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority however were not prepared to hold that the rent control petition is not maintainable on the reason that the R.C.R..No.300/2008 2 respondent in the rent control petition, the revision petitioner, had conceded his status in the building to be that of a tenant under the respondent herein; the petitioner in the rent control petition. It appears to us that the learned authorities below relied on certain observations in paragraph 18 of the judgment of the Full Bench in Parthakumar v. Ajith Viswanathan (2006 (2) KLT 250 (FB), wherein it is observed that once the respondent in the rent control petition concedes that there is landlord - tenant relationship between the parties, the petition will be maintained before the Rent Control Court. In this jurisdiction under Section 20, our enquiry is whether the finding concurrently entered by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority that the Rent Control Petition is maintainable in view of the landlord- tenant relationship between the tenant and the landlord, is vitiated by any illegality, irregularity or impropriety. 3. According to us, the finding of the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority can be sustained also on the reasons other than those mentioned in the orders of the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority. Section 27 of the Rent Control Act states that it is obligatory that particulars regarding R.C.R..No.300/2008 3 the building, as prescribed in Rule 12 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Rules are furnished along with the Rent Control Petition. We find that along with the rent control petition filed by the respondent, the respondent/landlord had furnished the prescribed particulars. In clause 3 of the particulars, the revision petitioner is described as the person in occupation of the premises and in clause 7 it is stated that the premises is occupied by a single tenant. According to us, the assertion of the landlord in clauses 3 and 7 that the premises is under the exclusive occupation of the revision petitioner as a tenant, is sufficient to hold that the landlord has admitted the status of the revision petitioner to be that of his tenant in the petition schedule building. Moreover, according to us, the very fact that the petition for eviction has been filed against the respondent alone invoking the provisions of Section 11 of the Act of 1965 itself is a circumstance which demonstrates that the petitioner in the rent control petition concedes the status of the revision petitioner as his only tenant in the building. The result of the above discussion is that challenge against the order/judgment fails. Rent Control Petition will stand R.C.R..No.300/2008 4 dismissed. Since the rent control petition is of the year 2007, the Rent Control Court is directed to special list the rent control petition for trial at the earliest and ensure that decision on merits of the rent control petition is taken at the earliest. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE dpk The words “Rent Control Petition” appearing in the last line of page 3 of the final order dated 8/4/2009 in RCR No.300/2008- B are corrected as “ Rent Control Revision” vide Order dated 24/7/2009 in I.A.No.1768/2009. Registrar (Judicial)