ROBERT WELRESS Vs. MAMMU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) REVISION petitioner in CRP. 299/1981 is the tenant against whom the respondent-landlord filed O. P. (R. C) 135/76 before the Rent controller, Kozhikode-II claiming eviction of the building on the ground of arrears of rent and bonafide requirement After the death of the revision petitioner, additional revision petitioners 2 to 8 were impleaded. REVISION petitioner in CRP. 475/1981 is the tenant against whom the respondent-landlord filed O. P. (R C.) 134/76 before the Rent Controller, Kozhikode-II under S. 11 (2) and 11 (3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965.

(2.) THE petitioner in the Rent Control Petitions contended that the buildings which belonged to Mammu Haji was leased to the tenants, that on the death of Mammu Haji his father Moidu became the owner and that on his death he became the sole owner of the buildings. THE tenants alleged that Moidu had agreed to sell the property for a total consideration of Rs. 6,000/- and had received Rs. 1,000/- as advance and issued receipts accordingly. According to them, it was agreed that the properties would be sold within six months from 30-7-1974. It is further contended by them that Moidu died on 10-12-1975 and therefore the sale deed could not be executed. THEy assert that there is no landlord-tenant relationship between them and the applicant and hence the petitions are not maintainable. Claim of the landlord that he is the son of moidu is also refuted by the tenants. THE tenants also disputed the claim of the landlord under S. 11 (3) of the Act.

(3.) THE question that has to be considered is as to whether the tenants denied. the title of the landlord. Though in the counter statement the revision petitioners contended that the respondent is not the son of Moidu they gave a goby to it at the time of evidence. But they were adamant in their stand that they entered into agreements to purchase the properties from the predecessor of the respondent, that part payment of the sale consideration was paid and that there exists no landlord-tenant relationship between them. As the tenants have definitely taken the stand that they have agreed to purchase the properties from the respondent's predecessor as per the agreements and as there is no landlord-tenant relationship between them it is futile to contend that they have not denied title of the landlord.