IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 29TH JANUARY 2008 / 9TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 3384 of 2008(C) ------------------------- RCP.58/2005 of MUNI-MAGI.COURT,PONNANI .................... PETITIONER: -------------------- ACHIPRAVALAPPIL HARIS, S/O.KUNHAPPUTTY, EDAPPAL AMSOM, THUYYAM DESOM, PONANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.VINOD RAVINDRANATH SRI.SAJU.S.A RESPONDENT: ---------------------- KANDATH VEETTIL SIYADUDHEEN, S/O.SAINUDHEEN KUTTY, PONANI AMSOM DESOM, PONANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K.Balakrishnan Nair & P.N.Ravindran, JJ. ======================== W.P(C).No.3384 of 2008 ======================== Dated this the 29th day of January, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair,J. The petitioner is the respondent in R.C.P.No.58 of 2005. The same was filed by the respondent herein seeking eviction under Section 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The petitioner raised a preliminary objection before the Rent controller to the effect that the respondent does not have title over the tenanted premises and prayed for a decision on that issue as a preliminary point. The Rent Controller considered the said point and rendered his decision against the petitioner. The matter was taken in appeal. The Appellate Authority affirmed the order of the Rent Controller. A revision was attempted before this Court. The said revision was also rejected. Later, the petitioner moved a commission application to prove his case under the second limb of the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. In that application, he also sought a direction to the WP(C) 3384/08 -: 2 :- Commissioner to identify the scheduled building with reference to the title deeds. The Rent Controller allowed the application to the extent it concerns with the second limb of the second proviso to Section 11(2)(b) of the Act. The prayer to direct the Commissioner to identify the property was declined by Ext.P3 order. This part of Ext.P3 order is impugned in this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. We are of the view that the decision of the Rent Controller is perfectly legal and valid. The petitioner's attempt is to raise again his objection regarding the title of the land lord, which was raised and rejected by all the authorities. The same was sought to be again raised before the Rent Controller and the said authority rejected the same rightly. We affirm the same. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. K.Balakrishnan Nair, Judge. P.N.Ravindran, Judge. ess 30/1