IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 22ND AUGUST 2008 / 31ST SRAVANA 1930 RCRev..No. 211 of 2008() ------------------------ RCA.153/2004 OF THE RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THALASSERY RCP.54/2002 OF THE RENT CONTROL COURT, KUTHUPARAMBA .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/IST RESPONDENT : --------------------------------- POYILAN MOIDEEN, S/O.MUHAMMED MUSALIYAR P.M.OUSHADA SALA, MAIN ROAD IRITTY, KEEZHUR AMSOM, THALASSERY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.I.MAYANKUTTY MATHER SRI.P.P.RAMACHANDRAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & 2ND RESPONDENT: --------------------- 1. CHANDROTH PARAYIL FATHIMABI, W/O. ZIRAGUDHEEN, KEEZHUR AMSOM DESOM PO.IRITTY, THALASSERY TALUK. 2. CHANDROTH PARAYIL NABEESU HAJJUMMA, W/O.HAMZA HAJI, KEEZHUR AMSOM DESOM PO.IRITTY, THALASSERY TALUK. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN & T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,JJ. ------------------------------- R.C.R.NO.211 OF 2008 -------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of August,2008 O R D E R Raman,J. Tenant is the revision petitioner. Landlady sought eviction by filing a Rent Control Petition before the Rent Control Court under Section 11(3) and 11(4)(iii) of the Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. Preliminary objection was raised by the tenant disputing the landlord-tenant relationship. The Rent Control Court thereupon proceeded to decide the issue as to whether the dispute raised is a bona fide dispute of title. Both sides produced evidence in respect of their case. The Rent Control Court, after analyzing the evidence in this case, came to the conclusion that there is no bona fide dispute and the preliminary objection was overruled. There was an appeal therefrom to the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority found that there is no merit in the appeal filed by the tenant and confirmed the order of the Rent Control Court, -2- R.C.R.No.211/2008 against which this revision is filed. 2. The building originally belonged to the mother of the petitioner in the rent control petition. By Ext.A1 gift deed the property was transferred in favour of the petitioner. Ext.A2 dated 31/3/2001 is a kachit executed thereafter by the tenant in favour of the landlord agreeing to pay rent at the rate of Rs.600/- per month. The tenant however contended that Ext.A1 is a sham document not acted upon and he had continued to pay the rent to the original landlady even after Ext.A1 and some receipts were also produced. The Rent Control Court did not accept the receipts as genuine and based on Ext.A2 kachit executed by the tenant in favour of the present landlady and other evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the dispute raised is not a bona fide dispute of title. The Appellate Authority, even after re-appreciating the evidence on record, came to the same conclusion as that of the Rent Control Court. We have perused the orders passed by the Rent Control Court and also that of the Appellate Authority. It is seen that -3- R.C.R.No.211/2008 Ext.A2 is a kachit executed by the tenant in favour of the present landlady. Though it was contended that it is only a nominal document not acted upon, the Rent Control Court did not accept the said contention. The Rent Control Court found that the mere reading of Ext.A2 would bring to light the fact that the lst respondent (tenant) at the time of execution of Ext.A2 clearly admitted the title of the petitioner with respect to the petition schedule room on the basis of Ext.A1 document. Therefore, it was found that the lst respondent cannot turn around and now contend that Exts.A1 and A2 are sham documents. Therefore, the denial of title set up by the lst respondent was found to be not bona fide. Ext.B3 to B13 produced are other documents which are relied on by the tenant. It was found that those documents are not conclusive as regards the title of the petition schedule property being in the name of Nabeesu. It was also found that the 2nd respondent Nabeesu the mother had also executed other gift deeds, Exts.A10 and A11and the mother used to reserve the right to collect the rent from the -4- R.C.R.No.211/2008 property gifted by her. The contention raised was that while issuing the receipts a mistake was crept in and similar receipts issued in the case of all the buildings without difference. This was accepted by the court below. The lst respondent, relying on the boundary description contained in Exts.A1, A10 and A11 contended that Ext.A1 document was never intended to be acted upon. The court below found that a perusal of the schedule in Ext.B1 to bring to the light the fact that the eastern boundary of the property covered in Ext.B1 was executed in the year 2000 which shows the property of Nabeesu while it should have been the property of the petitioner. These mis-descriptions in Exts.A1, A11 and Ext.B1 were found not clinching the issue regarding the title dispute. The question that arises for consideration is as to whether the tenant has accepted the rent control petitioner as his landlady. When he has executed Ext.A2 kachit in favour of the petitioner, unless there is concrete evidence to show that Ext.A2 was not executed by him or any other vitiating factors, he cannot raise a dispute of landlord-tenant -5- R.C.R.No.211/2008 relationship. In the absence of any such evidence, the authorities below rightly found that there is no bona fide dispute of title raised in this case. We do not find any reason to interfere with the order impugned. The revision is devoid of any merit and it is accordingly dismissed. P.R.RAMAN, Judge. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, Judge. kcv.