THANKACHAN Vs. GIREESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent filed R.C.P. No.32 of 2019 before the Rent Control Court (Munsiff), Sulthanbathery for eviction of the petitioner-tenant under Ss. 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(4)(i) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The petitioner filed a counter statement denying the respondent's title to the petition schedule building and also the landlord-tenant relationship. He filed I.A.No.1 of 2020 in the R.C.P. seeking to decide the maintainability of the Rent Control Petition. The respondent filed a counter statement. The Rent Control Court after hearing both sides, dismissed I.A.No.1 of 2020 as per order dated 23/02/2021. Feeling aggrieved of the said order, the petitioner filed this Original Petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The case of the respondent is that he purchased the landed property having an extent of 27.33 ares along with the petition schedule building by virtue of Sale Deed No.749 of 2018. The petitioner was residing in the said building as a tenant on the basis of a lease agreement dated 15.10.2008. He has been holding over the tenancy and the rate of rent is Rs.1,000/- per month. Rent since February 2018 has been in arrears. The petitioner sublet the building to three persons, namely, Smt.Mary Sebastian, Sri.Babychan and Smt.Rany Mol and they are in occupation of a portion of the building. The respondent requires the building for his residence. On the said grounds, eviction was sought.

(3.) The petitioner apart from denying the allegations and pleas about arrears of rent, subletting and respondent's need of the building for his own occupation, set forth a contention that 27.33 ares of land along with the petition schedule building and its adjoining one acre of land originally belonged to his father and document No.4710 of 2008 was happened to be executed by his father just as a security. He contended that he did not execute any rent agreement, but it was fabricated by making use of blank signed stamp papers obtained from him. It is his contention that he happened to borrow money from one Sri.Shibin and as security to the said loan, document No.4710 of 2008 was happened to be executed by his father. Its subsequent conveyance deeds, including the one in favour of the respondent are sham documents. He never paid any rent to the respondent or anyone else. There were criminal cases with regard to the transactions referred to above. On the said grounds, the petitioner challenged the maintainability of the R.C.P.