IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID FRIDAY, THE 28TH MARCH 2008 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1930 RP.No. 1075 of 2007() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN RCR.282/2007 .................... REVISION PETITIONER: --------------------------- JAMES JOB, S/O.KANDAMPARAMBIL MATHEW JACOB, OTTAPPALAM MARY QUEEN'S LAB PROPRIETOR, OTTAPPALAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. M/S.NEELIMA COIMBATORE FINANCE (P) LTD., 11/463, HARIKKARA STREET, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR V.EASWARDAS, S/O. LATE GOVINDANKUTTY NAIR, PALAKKAD. 2. ABDUL RAHIMAN HAJI, S/O.KUTTY HASSAN HAJI, VETTIKATTIL VALLAPUZHA, KURUVATTUR AMSOM, OTTAPPALAM. 3. MUHAMMED ASHRAF, S/O.KUNHIMOIDU HAJI, BUSINESS VELUTHODI HOUSE, VARAADE DESOM, OTTAPPALAM. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Review Petition No.1075/2007-C in Rent Control Revision No. 282 of 2007-C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Dated this the 28th day of March, 2008 O R D E R BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, J. The tenant changed his counsel and is making an attempt to reopen the order in R.C.R by filing this review. The tenant denied the title of the land lords. The two authorities concurrently found that the denial of title by the tenant is made without any bona fides. We confirmed the said finding. While doing so, we said the contention of the tenant that the sale deed in favour of the land lord is a sham document is a matter which can be agitated only by a person, who has right over the property and he does not have such a case. Therefore, the tenant cannot take up that plea now in the R.C.R. Materials have been produced to show that the erstwhile land lord of the property has a case that the document was got executed by fraud. It is also submitted that the original land lord has filed a suit for declaring that the sale deed is void, as O.S.No.38/2006 before the Sub Court, Ottappalam. So the tenant prays that the judgment of this Court may be reviewed. R.P.No.1075/2007 in R.C.R.No.282/2007 -: 2 :- 2. But we notice that the Rent Controller on the facts of the case found that the present land lords are in possession of the property on the strength of a sale deed. Mutation has been carried out in their favour. They are in possession of the properties also. It is a finding of fact. Therefore, prima facie, it can be taken that the present land lords got the property under a valid sale deed. But it is for the erstwhile land lord to establish his claim that the document was got executed by fraud, in appropriate proceedings and he has taken appropriate steps for that also. The above position will not in any way help the tenant. But the learned counsel for the review petitioner relied on the decision of this Court in Balan v.s. Philo [1987 (1) KLT 286]. In the said decision, it is stated when the tenant has raised a contention that the sale deed in favour of the land lord is a sham document, the rent controller has to consider that aspect and render orders. But we notice that the said principle laid down by the learned Single Judge cannot stand with the decision of the full Bench in Parthakumar v.Ajith Viswanath [2006 (2) KLT 250] wherein it was held as follows:- R.P.No.1075/2007 in R.C.R.No.282/2007 -: 3 :- “The Tribunal's jurisdiction is only to decide whether the denial of title or claim for permanent tenancy is bona fide. It is not expected to and does not have the jurisdictional competence to enter a finding whether the denial of title is valid or not. It has only jurisdiction to decide whether the denial of title is bona fide or not. If it is bona fide, the landlord can sue for eviction before the civil court. If it is not bona fide, the Special Tribunal can proceed to exercise its jurisdiction after recording a finding that the denial is not bona fide. Whether the denial of title is bona fide or not has to be decided by the Rent Control Court considering the nature of the contentions raised and the materials placed before it. This is a jurisdictional question if raised must normally be decided by the Tribunal before assuming jurisdiction.” 3. Even the erstwhile land lord admit that he has executed the document, whether that is supported by consideration, whether it is got executed by fraud is a matter between him and the present land lords. That dispute will not make the denial of the title made by the tenant a bona fide contention. So we find no ground has been made out in the review petition to review the order. Accordingly, it is dismissed. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE) ms