IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 16TH AUGUST 2010 / 25TH SRAVANA 1932 RCRev..No. 202 of 2004() ------------------------ RCA.3/2003 of DISTRICT COURT, MANJERI RCP.57/2000 of MUNI-MAGI.COURT,PONNANI .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT. --------------------------------------------------------- MANALEL M.U.UTHUPPU, S/O.PAILO ULAHANNAN, PONNANI NAGARAM AMSOM, PALLEPPURAM DESOM, PONNANI TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.MUJEEB RESPONDENT(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONER. ----------------------------------------------- AVITTAM FINANCE, KUNNAMKULAM, REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER PEETER C.CHACKO, S/O.CHEERAN BABY, KUNNAMKULAM VILLAGE. THALAPPILLY TALUK. ADV. SRI.T.KRISHNAN UNNI, SENIOR ADVOCATE THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ---------------------------------- R.C.R. No.202 of 2004 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of August, 2010 O R D E R ---------------- Pius C.Kuriakose,J. Under challenge in this revision petition by the respondent in the Rent Control Petition filed under Section 20 is the judgment of the Appellate Authority dismissing the Rent Control Petition holding that the denial of the landlord's title by the respondent is not bonafide. The contention raised by the revision petitioner who was the respondent in the RCP and who was proceeded against on the basis of a rental arrangement relied on by the landlord was that the landlord did not have proprietary title and that the document of title relied on by the landlord was in fact a security document executed in favour of the landlord by the revision petitioner, who was originally the owner. The Rent Control Court on evaluating the evidence which came on record consisting of Exts.A1 to A11 and B1 to B5, came to the conclusion that the denial of title was bonafide and that the eviction cannot be had from the Rent Control Court. Dismissing the RCP, the parties were relegated to the civil court. The Appellate RCR.202/04 2 Authority under the impugned judgment referred to various decisions including particularly to the judgment of this court in Charulatha Vs. Manju (2004 (1) KLT 290) and the judgment in Aboobacker Vs.Girija (1995 (1) KLT 553). The Appellate Authority has ruled that in the present case where the revision petitioner does not admit that his jural status in the building is that of a tenant is not entitled to have the bonafides of the denial of the title raised by him under the proviso to Section 11 (1) enquired into by the Rent Control Court. In that view of the matter the Appellate Authority set aside the order of the Rent Control Court and has remitted the RCP back to the Rent Control Court for enquiring into the merits of the eviction ground. Having gone through the grounds raised and having considered the submissions addressed at the bar, we are of the view that the judgment of the Full Bench of this court in Parthakumar Vs. Ajith Viswanathan (2006 (2) KLT 250 (F.B.)) decides the issue in favour of the revision petitioner. Under that judgment, the Full Bench, after overruling the judgment of the Division Bench in Charulatha Vs. Manju (cited supra), has ruled that in order that the Rent Control Court examines the bonafide of denial of title under the proviso to Section 11(1), it is enough that the alleged tenant is proceeded against by the landlord as a tenant. Thus the ruling of the Full Bench is to the RCR.202/04 3 effect that any person who is alleged to be a tenant by the landlord is entitled to raise the plea of denial of title under the proviso to Section 11(1). In view of the judgment of the Full Bench in Parthakumar Vs. Ajith Viswanathan (cited supra) the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority is liable to be set aside. We set aside the same and remand the R.C.A. back to the Rent Control Appellate Authority. That court is directed to take fresh decision on the question whether the denial of title raised by the revision petitioner is bonafide on the basis of the evidence already adduced by the parties before the Rent Control Court. While taking fresh decision the Appellate Authority will have due regard to the principles laid down by the Division Bench of this court in Aboobacker Vs.Girija (cited supra). Transmit the records forthwith to the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Manjeri. Parties will enter appearance before the Rent Control Appellate Authority on 13.9.2010. The Appellate Authority will take fresh decision pursuant to this order within three months thereafter. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb