GOUTHAMI Vs. INDIRA KUNJAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision by the tenants of a 'building' under S.20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short 'the Act'). The original tenant Bharathan died and his legal heirs are the revision petitioners. The respondents are the landlords who are the legal heirs of the original landlord deceased Karunakara Panicker. The respondents filed the petition for eviction, R. C. P. No. 31/85, before the Rent Control Court, Ernakulam under S.11(2) and 11(3) of the Act. After the enquiry the Rent Controller ordered eviction of the petitioners from the building in question under the aforesaid Sections, that is to say, on the grounds of 'arrears of rent' and 'bona fide need', In the appeal, R. C. A. No. 165 of 1989, filed by the petitioner under S.18 of the Act the Rent. Control Appellate Authority, Ernakulam set aside the order of eviction under S.11(2) but confirmed eviction under S.11(3) of the Act. It is against the said judgment of the appellate authority, this revision is filed by the petitioners.

(2.) LEARNED counsel, Sri N. Viswanatha Iyer, on behalf of the petitioners, in the first place, argued that the authorities below ought to have referred the matter to a civil court as there is dispute regarding the ownership of the building. The contention is that the second proviso to sub-s.(1) of S.11 of the Act is attracted inasmuch as the tenants denied the title of the landlords in this case. It is pertinent to note in this connection that the petitioners did not deny the title of the respondents in respect of the tenanted building ; their denial is only limited to the 'shed' which came into being after the execution of Ext.A5 rent deed executed by the original tenant in favour of the original landlord. It is to be noticed that the case of the respondents - landlords is that for all intentions and purposes the shed was treated as part of the leasehold premises though it came into being after the commencement of the tenancy. In fact on this aspect the Rent Controller as well as the appellate authority after independent assessment of evidence, came to same conclusion that the shed was treated by the parties as part of the leasehold premises.

(3.) THE second proviso to sub-s.(1) of S.11 is as follows: