IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH OCTOBER 2009 / 6TH KARTHIKA 1931 CRP.No. 2515 of 2002(B) ------------------------------------ RCA.50/1995 of V ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM RCP.88/1987 of ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT,KOCHI .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------ GOPALA PAI, SON OF JANARDANA PAI, HOUSE NO.9/1495, (NEW NO.9/1339) R.G. PAI ROAD, MATTANCHERRY, KOCHI-9. BY ADVS. MR.P.N.RAMAKRISHNAN NAIR MR.P.VISWANATHAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------- 1. SREENIVASA PAI, SON OF LATE KRISHNA PAI, CHANDRANAGOR, DHARAPARASHIB, BAGAM P.S., WEST BENGAL. 2. K. VASUDEVA PAI, SON OF LATE KRISHNA PAI, CHANDRANAGORE, DHARAPARASHIB, BAGAM P.S., WEST BENGAL. 3. DWARAKA BAI, W/O. LATE KRISHNA PAI, CHANDRANAGORE, DHARAPARASHIB, BAGAM P.S., WEST BENGAL. 4. RAJALAKMI DEVI, D/O. LATE KRISHNA PAI, CHANDRANAGORE, DHARAPARASHIB, BAGAM P.O., WEST BENGAL. 5. GANGA DEVI, D/O. LATE KRISHNA PAI, CHANDRANAGORE, DHARAPARASHIB, BAGAM P.S., WEST BENGAL. CRP. 2515/2002 6. SAROJINI DEVI, D/O. LATE KRISHNA PAI, CHANDRANAGORE, DHARAPARASHIB, BAGAM P.S., WEST BENGAL. (RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR POWER HOLDER A. PURUSHOTHAMA SHENOY, SON OF VENKITESWARA SHENOY, ANCHAL PARAMBU, PALLIPURAM, KOCHI TALUK). R1 & R2 BY ADV. MR.V.P.K.PANICKER MR.GEORGE VARGHESE PERUMPILLIKUTTIYIL MR.DILEEP R5 BY MR.M.R.RAJENDRAN NAIR, SENIOR ADVOCATE R5 BY ADVS.MR.M.R.SUDHEENDRAN, MR.M.R.HARIRAJ, MR.P.A.KUMARAN, MR.SURAJ.S. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP. NOS.6322/2002, 464/2003 IN CRP. 2515/2002 DISMISSED 28/10/2009 SD/- PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE SD/- K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE tss PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ C.R.P. NO: 2515 OF 2002 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th October, 2009. O R D E R PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, J. Under challenge is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming order passed by the Rent Control Court that the denial of the landlord's title made by the respondents in the Rent Control Petition under Clause (ii) of Sub Section (1) of Section 11 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' is not bonafide. The building in question is a residential building situated at Mattancherry, within the area of Kochi Corporation in a plot having an extent of 49 cents. The revision petitioner's contention in the earlier stages of the litigation between the parties was that they are cultivating tenants entitled to fixity of tenure under Section 13 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963. The above contention was ultimately repelled by this Court by judgment in C.M.A. 206/1987. It was held by this Court that the jural status of the revision petitioner is that of a building tenant only and that he is liable to be evicted under the provisions of the Act 2 of 1965 which is applicable to the area CRP 2515/2002 2 where the building is situated. In fact in the judgment in C.M.A 206/1987 which is marked as Ext.B7 (A12), it is clarified that the C.M.A is decided without prejudice to whatever contentions that the parties are entitled to take in terms of Section 11 of the Act. The preliminary contention of denial of the landlord's title as envisaged by the second proviso to Sub Section (1) of Section 11 is accordingly taken by the revision petitioner who contended that it is not the petitioner in the RCP who is his landlord but it is one Mr. Krishna Shenoy who is his landlord. 2. The judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Aboobacker v. Girija {1995(1)KLT 553} is a leading light on the scope of a contention of denial of title as envisaged by the second proviso of Sub Section 1 of Section 11. The Bench held: “The Court whose jurisdiction stands ousted must have the satisfaction that there are strong or at least substantial grounds or sufficient materials in support of the plea of the petitioner and that the chances of the plea being upheld by the Civil Court must be fairly on the higher side.” 3. Having gone through the order of the Rent Control Court and the judgment of the Rent control Appellate Authority confirming the same and the order of the Appellate Authority in R.P.3309/2001, we notice that it is after analysing the materials CRP 2515/2002 3 placed on record that finding is entered by the authorities below that the denial of title is not bonafide. Ext.A16 is a certified copy of the order passed by the Land Tribunal in an application filed by the revision petitioner for assignment of jenmam rights. Importantly it is the petitioners in the RCP who are arrayed as respondents therein. In other words the revision petitioner has admitted the petitioners in the RCP to be the land owners/landlords in respect of the premises which are the subject matter of the Rent Control Petition. Propriety title does not have much significance in rent control proceedings what is important in the proceedings under the Rent Control Act is a landlord/tenant relationship between the parties. In the present case where the revision petitioner admitted the petitioners in the RCP to be the landlords though the nature of tenancy claimed was different. We are of the view that any contention at a later stage that the petitioners in the RCP have no title and that there is no landlord tenant relationship at all between the parties will have to be found to be not bonafide. 4. The result is that we do not find any warrant for invocation of the revisional jurisdiction for correcting the judgment of the Appellate Authority and the order of the Rent Control Court. CRP 2515/2002 4 5. Rent Control Petition was instituted way back in 1987. It is likely that the parties may need to amend the pleadings in view of the subsequent events which could have happened. The learned Rent Control Court will afford at least one opportunity to the parties for amending their pleadings and thereafter will do the needful to have an early disposal of the Rent control Petition. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE Judge K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------- C.R.P.NO: 2515 OF 2002 -------------------------------- O R D E R Dated: 28th October, 2009.