ANANTHALAKSHMI Vs. MUTHOOT FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondents 1 and 2.

(2.) Order impugned in this proceedings is Ext.P12 passed by the Rent Control Court, Thodupuzha on I.A No.5 of 2020 in RCOP No.10 of 2019. The second respondent filed a petition for eviction of the first respondent alleging Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 ( in short 'the Act'). In that proceedings, it is asserted by the second respondent that he is the owner of the building and he is therefore entitled to receive rent from the first respondent. According to the second respondent's case, the property originally belonged to his brother T.K.Harihara Iyyer and by virtue of a registered Will executed by him in the year 1998, the petition schedule building and the land was gifted to him. It is his contention that he is the landlord in so far as the first respondent is concerned. In the proceedings, the petitioner, who is the second wife of deceased Harihara Iyyer, got herself impleaded contending that she is the owner of the building in dispute and the land upper tenant thereto. It is pointed out by the learned counsel on both sides that O.S No.26 of 2017 is pending before the Sub Court, Thodupuzha, in which the parties herein and the daughter of deceased Harihara Iyyer, are contesting. That suit is filed by the daughter of deceased Harihara Iyyer for partition of the assets left behind by him. In that suit, the petitioner alone was originally made a party. Thereafter, the second respondent got himself impleaded in the suit and set up a Will in his favour. That document is a disputed one. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that under the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, which governs the parties herein, the second respondent will not be a legal heir of deceased Harihara Iyyer. However, the second respondent's claim to the title of the property and building has to be established in that suit by proving that the Will allegedly executed by Harihara Iyyer in the year 1998 is a genuine document and he was having a sound state of mind at the time of its execution. Learned counsel for the second respondent pointed out that Harihara Iyyer survived nearly 19 years after execution of the Will and the disputed Will is a registered one. All these aspects will have to be considered in the suit to arrive at a correct conclusion regarding the genuineness of the Will. However, the Rent Control Court is not competent to decide that issue.

(3.) The impugned order happened to be passed in the context of the claim raised by the petitioner that the second respondent shall not be allowed to take away the rent deposited by the first respondent in the rent control proceedings. Ext.P12 order shows that the provisions under Sections 144 and 151 of C.P.C are not applicable to the proceedings and therefore the claim of the petitioner was denied.