SEBASTIAN THOMAS Vs. THOMAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is a Dentist by profession. He filed RCP.No.25/06 on the files of the Rent Control Court, Chalakkudy seeking eviction of the respondent tenant from the petition scheduled room, bearing No.XX/442 of Chalakkudy Municipality, urging ground under section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The Rent Control Court, by its order dated 14.9.2007, allowed the petition. The respondent tenant challenged the order before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Irinjalakkuda in RCA.69/07. The appellate authority, by judgment dated 25.6.2012, allowed the revision and the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court was set aside. It is aggrieved by this order, the landlord has filed this revision petition.

(2.) We heard counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

(3.) Reading of the order passed by the Rent Control Court shows that the landlord claimed ownership over the schedule property on the basis of Ext.A1, a settlement deed executed by his mother-in-law in his favour. One of the contentions raised by the tenant was that Ext.A1 was a sham document. According to the tenant, the executant of Ext.A1, the mother-in- law of the petitioner, had earlier filed a rent control petition under section 11(2)(b) for his eviction and the said petition was withdrawn at a later stage. It is also stated that subsequently, the then landlady had filed O.S.193/02 for recovery of money allegedly due towards the defaulted rent and that suit was also dismissed. It is further stated that in this background, realising that she would be unable to evict the tenant from the petition scheduled premises, Ext.A1 was executed by the landlady and that therefore, the said document is a sham one. The order passed by the Rent Control Court shows that after considering the document in the light of the other oral and documentary evidence, the Court rejected the said contention.