IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 7TH MARCH 2008 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 7746 of 2008(V) ------------------------- RCP.80/2007 of MUNSIFF'S COURT, VADAKARA .................... PETITIONERS: ------------ 1. ERAMVEETTIL NARAYANI,W/O.CHATHU,65 YEARS RETIRED TEACHER, KUMMANKODE AMSOM, NADAPURAM DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT KERALA STATE. 2. ERAMVEETTIL SHEENA,W/O.MURALIKRISHNAN 28 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, KUMMANKODE AMSOM NADAPURAM DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT KERALA STATE. 3. ERAMVEETTIL MIDHUNKRISHNAN, S/O.MURALIKRISHNAN, 13 YEARS, (MINOR) KUMMANKODE AMSOM NADAPURAM DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT KERALA STATE. 4. ERAMVEETTIL MANASA,D/O.MURALIKRISHNAN 9 YEARS, (MINOR)KUMMANKODE AMSOM NADAPURAM DESOM,VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT KERALA STATE. BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNAN SRI.R.PARTHASARATHY RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. KADENTAVIDA VASANTHI,W/O,ACHUTHAN, 60YEARS,HOUSE WIFE,KUMMANKODE AMSOM,NADUPURAMDESOM VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT KERALA STATE. PIN 673 504 2. KANDENTAVIDA LASITHA,D/O.ACHUTHAN 38 YEARS,HOUSE WIFE,KUMMANKODE AMSOM, NADUPURAM DESOM VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT KERALA STATE. PIN 673 504 WPC 7746/2008 3. KANDENTAVIDA NISHITHA,D/O.ACHUTHAN 35 YERS,HOUSE WIFE,KUMMANKODE AMSOM, NADUPURAM DESOM VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT KERALA STATE. PIN 673 504 4. KANDENTAVIDA PRASEETHA,D/O.ACHUTHAN 32 YEARS,HOUSE WIFE,KUMMANKODE AMSOM, NADUPURAM DESOM VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT KERALA STATE. PIN 673 504 5. NADUKKUNIYIL PARKKUM CHAMBOTTUMMAL RAJAN, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, IYYAMKODE AMSOM, VISHNUMANGALAM DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, KERALA STATE, PIN 673 504. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 7746 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated 7th March, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioners herein are respondents 1 to 4 in R.C.P.No.80/2007 before the Rent Controller, Vatakara. The respondents are petitioners 1 to 4 and the 5th respondent in the R.C.P. The landlords claimed eviction of the tenanted premises under Sections 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(4)(i) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The tenants resisted the application, contending, inter alia, that the landlords have no title to the property. The Rent Controller rejected the said objection raised by the tenants, by Ext.P1 order. Hence this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the same. 2. According to the landlords, the building belonged to one Smt.Matha. She executed a will in favour of one Mr.Achuthan. The petitioners in the R.C.P are the legal heirs of the said Achuthan. The petition schedule building was given on lease to one Mr.Chathu. The WPC 7746/2008 2 respondents 1 to 4 in the R.C.P are the legal heirs of the said Chathu. The 5th respondent is their sub lessee. According to the tenants, the land belonged to Smt.Matha. But, Mr.Chathu constructed a building there, expending money from his pocket. All other rooms except the petition schedule room were rented out on rent deeds executed in favour of Smt.Matha. Mr.Chathu was collecting the rent on her behalf. The petition schedule building was retained by Mr.Chathu and he got absolute title over it. 3. It is admitted by the tenants that the land belonged to Smt.Matha. It is also admitted in their counter statement that other tenants other than Mr.Chathu had executed rent deeds in favour of Smt.Matha. The court below found that the tenants failed to produce any document to show that the petition schedule building was assigned by Smt.Matha in favour of Mr.Chathu. The value of the building being above Rs.100/-, the assignment can only be by a registered deed. It was also found that the tenants failed to produce any materials to show that the building was constructed by Mr.Chathu, expending his own money. In the light of the above facts, the claim of the title of Chathu over the petition schedule building and consequently the claim of the tenants was found against by the Rent Controller. We find that the reasons and conclusions of the Rent Controller, WPC 7746/2008 3 while arriving at the said finding, are legal and valid. When the land belongs to Smt.Matha and all other rooms except the petition schedule room also belong to her, it can be safely presumed that the entire building belongs to her, unless an assignment deed is executed in favour of Mr.Chathu by her. Except the self serving statement, no other materials had been produced by the tenants to show that their predecessor-in-interest was the assignee of the petition schedule building. Therefore, the above finding has been rightly arrived at. 4. The tenants also disputed the validity of the will stated to be executed by Smt.Matha in favour of Mr.Achuthan. But, the Rent Controller found that the petitioners before it are co-owners of the petition schedule building. Therefore, they are entitled to maintain the Rent Control Petition. On that ground, the said contention was rejected. 5. In this writ petition, the learned counsel for the petitioners mainly challenged the said finding of the Rent Controller. According to him, the other co-owners have disputed the execution of the will and they have attempted to get themselves impleaded in the Rent Control Proceedings. By Ext.P2 order, the said application had been rejected by the Rent Controller. We notice that it was rejected in earlier point of time, when compared to Ext.P1. As far as the petitioners herein/tenants are concerned, they have no WPC 7746/2008 4 locus standi to challenge Ext.P2. But, the learned counsel for the petitioners relying on the decision of the Apex Court in J.J. Lal (P) Ltd. v. M.R.Murali [(2002)3 SCC 98] contended that the petitioners are entitled to challenge the derivative title of the landlords. We notice that the said decision has no application, whatsoever, to the facts of this case. In this case, admittedly, the landlords who filed the R.C.P., are co-owners. The claim of other co-owners has already been rejected by the Rent Controller. Even assuming others have a right in the property, it is well settled that a co-owner can maintain an application for eviction. The learned counsel for the petitioners also relied on the decision of the learned single Judge of this Court in Lakshmanan v. Krishna Rao [1995(2) KLT SN 37 (Case No.50)] and submitted that if the co-owners dispute the title of the petitioners before the Rent Controller, the R.C.P may not be maintainable. But, we notice that in the above case no finding is rendered, supporting the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners. We are of the view that the denial of title has been made by the petitioners without any bona fides. In fact, the said claim has to be described as an abuse of the process of the court. Accordingly, the writ WPC 7746/2008 5 petition is dismissed. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. Nm/