VINODHAN Vs. THULASIDEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE landlord is the revision petitioner. He challenges in this revision, under Section 20 of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1965, the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority remitting the rent control petition back to the Rent Control Appellate Court for formulating an issue as to whether the tenant's denial of the landlord's title is a bona fide one (a preliminary issue as envisaged by the proviso to Section 11(1) of the Act). The rent control petition was filed by the revision petitioner against the respondent for eviction invoking the grounds of arrears of rent (Section 11 (2)(b)), bonafide need for own occupation (Section 11(3)) and user of the building in such a manner as to reduce the value and utility of the building materially and permanently (Section 11(4) (2)). In the rent control petition, the landlord relied on Exts.A2, A11 and A12 rental agreements to contend that that there is a landlord -tenant relationship between him and the respondent.

(2.) THE respondent disputed the landlord's proprietary title over the building, which was claimed on the basis of Ext.A1 sale deed. Inter alia, she disputed the existence of any landlord -tenant relationship between her and the landlord. The Rent Control Court, obviously as nobody wanted any preliminary point or issue to be formulated as to whether the denial of title raised by the respondent/tenant is a bonafide one in terms of the proviso to Section 11(1), listed the RCP for trial on the following points;

(3.) However, it is seen that in the enquiry conducted by the Rent Control Court, parties let in evidence in touching the existence or otherwise of a landlord -tenant relationship between the parties. The evidence consisted of the oral evidence of the landlord as PW1 and also Exts.A1 to A17 documents. Exts.A2, A11 and A12, whereas already indicated the rental documents, relied on by the landlord in the enquiry. On the side of the tenant, the evidence consisted of the oral evidence of RW1 apart from the evidence adduced by two witnesses such as RWs 2 and 3. The documentary evidence on the side of the tenant consisted of Exts. B1 to B5 and report & plan submitted by the Advocate Commissioner were marked as Exts.C1 and C2. Even though there was no specific issue or point as to the bonafides or otherwise of the denial of the landlord's title, the Rent Control Court did consider the issue, i.e., the question whether there exists a landlord -tenant relationship between the parties as claimed by the landlord. A reading of paragraph 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the Rent Control Court's order will clearly show that the issue was considered by the Rent Control Court in the light of the evidence adduced by the parties with all seriousness and in paragraph 9, the following clear finding is seen entered.