RAPHAEL Vs. SUDHODHANAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent instituted an application for eviction under sub-ss. (2)(b), (3), (4)(i) and (4)(ii) of S. 11 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, for short, 'the Act'. The petitioner in this revision, who is the respondent in that Rent Control Petition, pleaded, among other things, that the petition schedule property and the buildings connected to it belong to the petitioner in the Rent Control Petition (respondent herein) and his brothers in co-ownership, and that the person, who has instituted the Rent Control Petition, does not have absolute title to the petition schedule property. He further pleaded that his father, Devassy, took the building on lease from Ananthakrishnan, one of the brothers of the petitioner in the Rent Control Petition, and till his death, Devassy and his son, the respondent in the Rent Control Petition (petitioner before us), paid rent to him; that rent was so paid till 1998 August, and after the death of Ananthakrishnan, none claimed rent, and hence, there is arrears. He also pleaded that neither his father Devassy, nor he had taken the property on lease from the person, who filed the Rent Control Petition. Do the aforenoted pleadings amount to bonafide denial of title, within the meaning of S. 11(1) of the Act

(2.) Admittedly, even going by the case of the respondent therein, the Rent Control Petition is instituted by a co-owner. That apart, the building was, admittedly, taken on rent, either by Devassy or his son, who is the respondent in the Rent Control Petition. The specific plea of the respondent in the Rent Control Petition is that after the demise of Ananthakrishnan, there was no demand or payment of rent. With the aforesaid undisputed facts, the fact of the matter is that the person in occupation, who is the respondent in the Rent Control Petition, falls within the definition of 'tenant' under the Act. The person, who has filed the application for eviction, is admittedly, a co-owner of the property. He, therefore, falls within the definition of 'landlord' under the Act. Exclusive or absolute title to property is not necessary to institute a Rent Control Petition. The denial of title of the person, who has instituted the Rent Control Petition, is a mere mirage, not discerning to be countenanced on the face of the clear provisions of the Act. It deserves to be expelled, ex facie. For the aforesaid reasons, we find no illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the order of the Rent Control Court or in the judgment rendered by the appellate authority. Hence, this Revision Petition fails.