E.C.JOSE Vs. V.GOPALAKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent in R.C.P.No.120 of 2016 on the files of the Rent Control Court (Munsiff), Thrissur has filed this Revision Petition under Sec. 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short "the Act"). The respondents have filed the R.C.P. They sought eviction of the petitioner under Sec. 11(3) of the Act. The R.C.P. was allowed as per the order dtd. 27/5/2019. An appeal was filed by the petitioner under Sec. 18 of the Act. That appeal, R.C.A.No.158 of 2019, was dismissed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority (IV Additional District Judge), Thrissur as per the judgment dtd. 29/3/2023.

(2.) When this matter came up for admission today, we have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned counsel appearing for the respondents in detail.

(3.) The petition schedule building is a residential one. It originally belonged to one Vadakkot karthiani Amma and on her death, it devolved upon Smt.Malathy Amma. She let out the building to the petitioner as per the rent agreement dtd. 19/6/1995. Smt.Malathy Amma expired and the building devolved upon the respondents. Respondents demanded the petitioner to surrender vacant possession of the building for the need of setting up residence of the 1st respondent. The petitioner resisted the petition for eviction by denying the title of the respondents to the petition schedule building and also disputing bona fides of the need urged by them. The petitioner contended that he entered into an agreement for sale with Smt.Malathy Amma agreeing the sale consideration to be Rs.20,000.00. The building is in a puramboke land and it was agreed that a monthly rent of Rs.500.00, which eventually was increased to Rs.750.00 and to Rs.1,000.00, would be paid till Smt.Malathy Amma obtained Pattayam, upon which only the sale deed could be executed. It was further contended that the lease agreement is a forged document, which was made using the blank signed paper obtained from the petitioner.