IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN TUESDAY, THE 9TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 18TH KARTHIKA 1932 RCRev..No. 339 of 2010() ------------------------ ( RCA.13/2007 of II ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, KOLLAM RCP NO.58/2005 OF RENT CONTROL COURT, KOLLAM) .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/COUNTER PETITIONER -------------------------------------------------------------------- V.RAMACHANDRAN, RESIDING AT DHANAM HOUSE, KUTCHERRY WARD, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.JIBU P THOMAS SRI.P.S.APPU SRI.NIMOD.A.R SRI.C.A.ANOOP RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/ PETITIONER ------------------------- N.HARIKRISHNAN, RESIDING AT SREERANGAM, JAWAHAR NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R..No. 339 OF 2010 ------------------------ Dated this the 9th day of November, 2010 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Under challenge in this revision filed by the tenant under Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965 is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming an order of eviction passed by the rent control court under Section 11 (2)(b) of Act 2 of 1965. There was no response by the tenant to the statutory intimation notice sent by the landlord under the proviso to section 11(2) (b). However, when the rent control petition was filed, the tenant filed objections denying the existence of a direct landlord tenant relationship between the petitioner in the rent control petition and the respondent in the rent control petition. However, as quoted by the learned rent control court in its order, it was contended at paragraph 5 of the objection as follows; “lÀPn ]«nI ISapdn 1910þð lÀPn I£nbpsS ap³KmanIfnð \nópw Fsâ ap³KmanIÄ hmSIbv¡v FSp¯n«pÅXmWv. Ct¸mÄ ioam«n sSIvkväbnðkv hym]mcw RCR.No.339/2010 2 \S¯póXv {ioaXn [\e£vanbmWv. FXnÀ I£nbpw lÀPn I£nbpambn bmsXmcp hmSIIcmdpIfpw FgpXn ]nSn¨n«nñ.” 2. In paragraph 3 of the objection it is stated that the petition schedule premises consisted of two rooms having door numbers 1398 and 1399. It was further contended in that paragraph that the revision petitioner has not taken the building having door number M.C. 1398 from the petitioner in the rent control petition. 3. The Rent control court construed the above contention as one practically admitting the existence of landlord tenant relationship between the predecessor in interest of the parties and similar relationship in between the petitioner in the RCP and the respondent in the RCP. The rent control court also noticed that in the covering letters against the payment of rent by means of Demand Drafts towards the rent payable in respect of the petition schedule premises the name of the revision petitioner alone was shown. It was also noticed by the rent control court that as against the oral evidence adduced by the landlord in support of the rental arrangement pleaded in the rent control RCR.No.339/2010 3 petition, the tenant did not mount the witness box and that the tenant's power of attorney holder, who was examined as CPW1, was not in a position to say anything authoritatively regarding the existing rental arrangement. The rent control court would therefore on evaluation of the entire evidence on record consisting of Exts.A2 to A9 and testimonies of PW1 and CPW1 come to the conclusion that there existed a landlord tenant relationship between the parities in the rent control petition and that the rent was in arrears as alleged and that the same was not paid in spite of the statutory demand notice. It was accordingly that order of eviction under section 11(2)(b) was passed. 4. The appellate authority considering the appeal preferred by the revision petitioner made a reappraisal of the evidence and concurred with all the conclusions of the Rent Control Court. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. 5. In this revision under Section 20 various grounds have been raised challenging the judgment of the appellate authority. Sri.V.Chitambaresh, learned senior counsel for the revision petitioner, addressed submissions before us on the basis of all RCR.No.339/2010 4 those grounds. Mr.Chitambaresh submitted that in order that a rent control petition is successfully maintained in the rent control court, it is a statutory pre requisite that there exists a landlord tenant relationship between the parties to the rent control petition. In the instant case, the rent control court misconstrued the contention as one of denial of title. According to the learned senior counsel, the revision petitioner does not deny the title of the petitioner in the rent control petition. What is denied is only the existence of a landlord tenant relationship. The best evidence to show that there exists landlord tenant relationship between the parties is a rent chit. No such rent chit was produced by the respondent landlord though he was challenged to do so. In the absence of the rent chit, adverse inferences should have been drawn against the respondent and the rent control petition should have been dismissed. 6. We have considered the submissions of the learned senior counsel. We have gone through the order of the rent control court and we have scanned the judgment of the appellate authority, which under the statutory scheme is the final court on facts. It is trite that title, as envisaged by sub RCR.No.339/2010 5 section (1)of Section 11, is not proprietary or paramount title. Instead, it is essentially title as landlord or entitlement of the petitioner in the rent control petition to the rent in respect of the building in question. In that way, it can be said that the title, for the purpose of the rent control court, is essentially the existence of a landlord tenant relationship. It was on the basis of existence of landlord tenant relationship between the parties, that the respondent sought to maintain the rent control petition. The revision petitioner in paragraph 5 of the statement of objections did admit that the petition schedule building was taken on lease by his predecessor in interest way back in 1910 from the respondent's predecessor. It is not at all contended that the existing rental arrangement is not a continuation of the arrangement which was brought into existence in 1910. Instead, what is contended is only that business of Seemati textile is presently conducted by one Dhanalakshmi, who is the wife of the revision petitioner. As rightly observed by the learned rent control court and the Appellate Authority, the landlord is not expected to know as to who is the proprietor of the business that is conducted in the building which was RCR.No.339/2010 6 leased out to him or his predecessor. The landlord needs to be concerned only as to who is the tenant presently in possession. The finding that the revision petitioner is the tenant is entered, in our opinion, on a correct appreciation of the evidence on record including circumstances attending on the case. In fact Exts.A3 A4, and A5 covering letters sent against the demand drafts issued in respect of the rent for the building sufficiently indicate that it was Ramachandran, the revision petitioner, who purchased the D.Ds . Significantly Smt.Danalakshmi's name is mentioned in the covering letters regarding the payment of rent in respect of other two rooms and not the petition schedule room. We also notice that against the responsible oral evidence adduced by PW1 in support of the rental arrangement pleaded by him, counter evidence was adduced by the power of attorney holder of the revision petitioner who was not in a position to give any authentic information regarding the existing rental arrangement. 7. In short, we do not find any illegality, irregularity or impropriety as contemplated by section 20 about the judgment of the appellate authority. The revision necessarily has to fail RCR.No.339/2010 7 and will stand dismissed. We dismiss the revision confirming the judgment of the appellate authority. We, however, grant to the revision petitioner two months time from today to make requisite deposits so that the order of eviction can be got vacated under section 11(2) (c). PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE dpk