IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN THURSDAY, THE 21ST OCTOBER 2010 / 29TH ASWINA 1932 RCRev..No. 323 of 2010() ------------------------ RCA.14/2009 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHROITY , TRIVANDRUM RCP.4/2008 of RENT CONTROL COURT, TVM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/COUNTER PETITIONER -------------------------------------------------------------------- R.CHANDRAN KUTTY, AGED 46, S/O.LATE RAGHAVAN PILLAI, GROUND FLOOR, T.C.39/2159, BINDU BHAVAN, PADANNAVU LANE, MANACAUD.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN SRI.T.V.JAYAKUMAR NAMBOODIRI SRI.THUSHAR NIRMAL SARATHY SRI.M.M.VINOD KUMAR SMT.K.M.RAMYA SRI.P.K.RAKESH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------ N.B.SAROJINI AMMA, W/O.PRABHAKARAN NAIR, IST FLOOR, T.C.39/2159, BINDU BHAVAN, PADANNAVU LANE, MANACAUD.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No. 323 OF 2010 ------------------------ Dated this the 21st day of October, 2010 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Under challenge in this revision filed by the tenant is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court on the grounds of arrears of rent under section 11 (2)(b) and bona fide need for own occupation under Section 11(3). The parties will be referred to as the landlady and the tenant. 2. The landlady's case in the context of ground of arrears of rent was that the building is let out to the tenant on the basis of a lease deed executed between the landlady and the tenant and that the rent at the rate of Rs.1300/- per month is defaulted since June 2006 and that despite demand notice the arrears was not discharged. The landlady's case regarding the ground under sub section (3) of Section 11 was that her younger RCR.No.323/2010 2 son Anil, who is unmarried, needs to occupy the building for his own independent residence. 3. A statement of objection was filed by the revision petitioner tenant. The existence of the landlord tenant relationship between the petitioner in the RCP and the revision petitioner was admitted. It was contended that the arrears of rent, as alleged, was not correctly due and there was failure on the part of the landlady in issuing receipts for certain payments made. It was also contended that a sum of Rs.15,000/- had been advanced at the time of entrustment of the building on lease and that the same is liable to be adjusted against the rent if any in arrears. It was further contended that the building originally belonged to one Smt.Bindu, the daughter of the landlady who is survived by her husband and a son and that RCP is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. Significantly no specific contention disputing the bona fides of the claim of the landlady to accommodate her son is raised. 4. The rent control court conducted enquiry and in the enquiry the evidence consisted of Exts.A1 to A3, Exts.B1 to B2 series, oral evidence of PWs 1 & 2 and that CPW 1. PW 1 was RCR.No.323/2010 3 the landlady herself and PW2 was Anil the dependent son. CPW1 was the tenant. The Rent Court Court on evaluating the evidence came to the conclusion that both the eviction grounds invoked by the landlady stood established. Accordingly, the order of eviction was passed on both the grounds. 5. The appellate authority, considering the appeal preferred by the revision petitioner, would reappraise the evidence and concur with all the conclusions of the Rent Control Court. The appeal was accordingly dismissed. 6. In this revision under Section 20 various grounds are raised challenging the judgment of the appellate authority. Sri.K.S.Madhusoodanan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner addressed strenuous and persuasive arguments before us on the basis of every ground which is raised in the RCR. The learned counsel submitted at the very outset that the building in question belonged admittedly to Smt.Bindu who is survived by her husband and only son. Referring to Section 15(1)(a) of the High Succession Act, Mr.Madhusoodanan submitted that the landlady does not have any share over the estate of Smt.Bindu. Hence, she cannot have any locus standi to institute the rent RCR.No.323/2010 4 control petition and to accommodate her son which will be indetriment to the interest of the sharers to the estate of Smt.Bindu. The learned counsel referred also to Section 8 of the Hindu Minority & Guardianship Act and submitted that any dealing with the minor's property, unless it be with the permission of the District Court concerned, will be irregular if not illegal. The learned counsel also submitted that even under the Hindu Minority & Guardianship Act, it is the natural guardian, who in this case is the husband of Smt.Bindu, who can deal with the minor's property. Mr. Madhusoodanan, therefore, submitted that the proceedings before the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority are vitiated due to this fatal blemish. According to him, the Rent Control Court did not hold enquiry as is contemplated by the second proviso to sub section (1) of Section 11. For that reason also, the proceedings are vitiated. Mr. Madhusoodanan also assailed the eviction order on merits. The learned counsel also referred to Section 11 (16) of the Rent Control Act. 7. Notwithstanding the persuasiveness of Mr.Madhusoodanan's submissions, we do not find any illegality, RCR.No.323/2010 5 irregularity or impropriety as envisaged by Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965 about the judgment of the appellate authority which under the statutory scheme is the final court on facts. May be it is true that the proprietary title to the building in question rested with Smt.Bindu during her life time and upon her demise the title devolved upon Bindu's husband and minor son. But, in rent control juris prudence the proprietary title is only very limited relevance. What is relevant in rent control proceedings is the existence of a landlord tenant relationship between the petitioner in the RCP and the respondent/tenant who is sought to be evicted. This is a case where the existence of a landlord tenant relationship between the petitioner in the RCP and the revision petitioner is expressly admitted. In such cases, the question of holding enquiry into the bona fides of the denial of title as contemplated by the second proviso to sub section (1) of Section 11 does not arise. As already indicated, title for the purpose of rent control proceedings is essentially the title as the landlord or entitlement to receive rent from the tenant. In the instant case, the respondent landlady, having let out the building to the revision petitioner on the basis of a rent chit, is RCR.No.323/2010 6 entitled to receive rent from the revision petitioner in her own right and not as a mere agent of somebody else. That being so, sub section (16) of Section 11, which provides as follows; “Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, no person who is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of a building merely as an agent of the landlord shall, except with the previous written consent of the landlord be entitled to apply for the eviction of a tenant” cannot have any application. 8. The landlady's title was not denied by the revision petitioner through the statement of objections filed to the rent control petition. It was admitted in the sense that existence of landlord tenant relationship between the parties was admitted. Of course there was a contention that the ownership of the building is not with the landlady, but with Smt.Bindu's minor son and Bindu's husband. Section 15(1) of the Hindu Succession Act certainly provides that the husband and the son alone are the heirs and not the mother. But as already indicated, in these proceedings what is relevant is existence of landlord tenant RCR.No.323/2010 7 relationship. In that view of the matter , Mr. Madhusoodanan's arguments made in the context of Section 8 and other provisions of Hindu Minority & Guardianship Act also cannot receive acceptance. 9. We shall now proceed to consider whether the order of eviction concurrently passed by the statutory authorities suffers from any infirmity. In this jurisdiction under Section 20, which is revisional in nature, this court is not ordinarily expected to make a reappraisal of the evidence for the purpose of substituting factual conclusions arrived at by the fact finding authorities. Having gone through the judgment of the appellate authority, we are convinced that the findings entered therein regarding the ground under Section 11 (3) and the ground of arrears of rent are all findings entered on the basis of the evidence available on record. PW2, the defacto claimant, himself gave inspiring evidence. His evidence was not shattered despite cross examination. He stood firm on material particulars. We are not persuaded to hold that the appreciation of evidence by the statutory authorities was erroneous. In short, we do not find any warrant for invocation of the revisional jurisdiction. RCR.No.323/2010 8 The RCR fails and will stand dismissed. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE dpk