IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 12TH AUGUST 2011 / 21ST SRAVANA 1933 RCRev..No. 250 of 2011(D) ------------------------------------- [R.C.A.NO.13/2011 OF DISTRICT COURT,KOLLAM, R.C.P.NO.44/2010 OF ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER -II, (ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT), KOLLAM] .................... PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------------------------------- KUNJUMOLE GEORGE, W/O.GEORGE, GIMA NIVAS, P.O.KUREEPUZHA, HOUSE NO.411, WARD NO.XIII, PERINAD, THRIKKADAVR VILLAGE, KUREEPUZHA CHERRY, THRIKKADAVUR PANCHAYATH. BY ADVS. SRI.MATHEW JOHN, SRI.DOMSON .J.VATTAKUZHY. RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: -------------------------------------------------------------- GRACY BERNAD, W/O. STPEHAN BERNAD, PADINJARAKKADAVIL, PERINAD VILLAGE, VELLIMON.P.O., PIN-691 511, PERINAD PANCHAYATH, HOUSE NO.11(5), WARD NO.4, KOLLAM. BY ADVS. SRI.VAKKOM N.VIJAYAN, SMT.V.RENJU, SRI.P.ANIYAN, SMT.M.A.RAMITHA. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JJ. ------------------------------- RCR.NO. 250 of 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of August, 2011 ORDER Pius C.Kuriakose ,J. Eventhough we have heard learned counsel for the parties Sri.Mathew John for the revision petitioner and Sri.Vakkom N.Vijayan, learned counsel for the respondent elaborately, we feel that in the nature of the decision that we are taking, it is not necessary to write a detailed judgment. In fact the facts have been narrated very accurately by the Rent Control Court and the appellate authority and narrating the facts by this court again will be unnecessary, The question which arises for decision is whether the judgment of the appellate authority, finding that the denial of the landlady's title raised by the revision petitioner, the alleged tenant to Rent Control petition filed by the respondent/landlord relying upon the rent arrangement between the parties evidenced by two successive lease deeds is not bonafide warrants interference within the contours of the revisional jurisdiction under section 20 of the Act 1965. Having RCR.250/2011 2 gone through the judgment of the appellate authority which under the scheme of the Rent Control Statute is the final court on facts, it has to be observed that the findings entered by the appellate authority are reasoned and the process of reasoning leading to such findings are also sound. But we notice that the learned appellate authority may be by an omission has not entered a finding as to the existence or otherwise of the rental arrangement pleaded by the landlady in the RCP. Perhaps in the teeth of the finding entered by the appellate authority, the finding that such a rental arrangement exists was only consequential. Whatever that be we feel that even sustaining the judgment of the appellate authority, relief to a certain extent can be granted to the revision petitioner. 2. The revision petitioner filed OS.No.780/10 before Subordinate Judge's court, Kollam seeking a declaration to the effect that the document of title relied on by the landlady is null and void and that the revision petitioner has continued in possession of the property notwithstanding the above sale deed. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority has observed in its judgment that the suit is instituted “ much after” the institution RCR.250/2011 3 of the Rent Control petition. The above observation is wrong. Atleast only a few days prior to the institution of the Rent Control petition the suit had been instituted. The facts remaining presently is that a comprehensive suit is now pending trial by the Sub Court, Kollam. We feel that the eviction order if any to be passed by the Rent Control Court should be made subject to the decree which the Sub Court may pass in O.S.No.780/10. In other words even as we sustain the judgment of the appellate authority and permit the rent control court to try the rent control petition, there will be a direction that any order of eviction which may be passed in the rent control petition should be kept in abeyance till the suit O.S.No.780/10 is tried and disposed of by the Sub Court. If the suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff, necessarily the eviction order to be passed by the Rent Control Court will become inexecutable. If the suit is dismissed, the eviction order will become executable. 3. The result therefore is that the RCR is disposed of sustaining the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authroity and permitting the Rent Control Court to try and dispose of the rent control petition on the merits of the eviction grounds. RCR.250/2011 4 However, there will be a direction to the execution court that execution of eviction order, if any passed by the Rent Control Court should be deferred till O.S.No.780/10 is tried and disposed of by the Subordinate Judge's Court. If that suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff therein the E.P. should be closed giving liberty to the petitioner- decree holder to move again, once the decision in the appeal which he may file against the decree of the Sub Court is known. But if the suit is dismissed, the execution court shall proceed with the execution. The parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE pmn/ RCR.250/2011 5