V RAMACHANDRAN Vs. N HARIKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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; ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMMITED]...

(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.) 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 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.