JOSEPH K.THOMAS Vs. BALARAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two revision petitions are directed against the very same order. The only distinguishing feature is that one of them-R.C.R. No. 148 of 2025-has been filed by a person who was not a party to the original rent control proceedings. The maintainability of a revision petition filed by such a non-party is, therefore, also an issue for consideration. Both revisions challenge the concurrent findings of eviction recorded under Sec. 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rent Control Act"). The authorities below have concurrently found that the need pleaded in the landlord's eviction petition is genuine and bona fide.

(2.) Lengthy arguments have been raised at the bar on the side of the tenant, mainly focusing on the point that non-impleadment of partners of the tenant-firm is fatal to the petition for eviction. It was also argued that the landlord was originally a firm, and without a surrender to the landlord by the then-tenant, the landlord cannot institute a rent control petition. The issues of the case are discernible from the facts themselves.

(3.) The tenanted premises originally belonged to M/s. Maruthi Enterprises in 1991, while executing the initial lease agreement. The initial lease agreement was executed between the managing partners of the landlord and the tenant firm. Subsequently, the lease was renewed, and, ultimately, the latest lease deed was executed by the co-owners of the premises in favour of the managing partner of the tenant firm, Mr. Joseph K. Thomas. There is no dispute regarding these facts. The question as to whether there was a surrender of the previous tenancy does not assume much significance, for the tenant cannot dispute its own deed, whereby it has expressly acknowledged the present landlord. In the limited context of the Rent Control Act, the Rent Controller is only required to examine whether a landlord- tenant relationship exists. Once the tenant has admitted the present relationship with the landlord, the Rent Control Court cannot go beyond that admission to enquire into whether there was any dissolution or alteration of the earlier partnership. The tenant is estopped from raising any further contention in regard to such a relationship when bound by the written lease deed recognising the landlord's status.