P M PARTHAKUMAR Vs. AJITH VISWANATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Can a bonafide denial of title be raised under the second proviso to Section 11(1) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by a person against whom eviction proceedings is initiated, even when he disputes the assertion of the landlord that he is a tenant In order to raise such a contention, is it essential and invariable that he must first admit that he is a tenant Does the decision of the Division Bench in Charulatha v. Manju 2004 (1) KLT 290 deserve reconsideration These are the interesting questions that arise for consideration in these revision petitions referred to us by a Division Bench of this Court comprising of Justice R. Bhaskaran and Justice K.R. Udayabhanu.

(2.) An attempt shall first be made to summarise the relevant skeletal facts in which the question referred arises for determination. For the sake of easy reference, the parties shall be referred to as the tenant and the landlords.

(3.) The tenant herein - one P.M. Parthakumar, and one Sivananthan are brothers. They along with their father and siblings were partners of a firm by name "R.M. Kutty & Sons". The partnership was carrying on various items of business. The partnership was dissolved. Such items of business of the firm were allotted to various partners. Ext.A2 is the deed of dissolution dated 31/3/88. The partners who were close relatives, allegedly entered into a family arrangement also. The same is described to be a composite agreement and is produced and marked as Ext.A3. The business of "Victory Automobiles and Service Station" was allotted to the tenant herein P.M. Parthakumar. That business was run in a premises (including buildings which are the petition schedule buildings in these cases) which was purchased in the name of Sivananthan - one of the partners. The purchase was made by late P.M. Kutty (the father of Sivananthan and Parthakumar) when the said Sivananthan was only a minor. Long after the dissolution, allotment of business to Sivananthan and the family arrangement, Sivananthan executed an assignment deed conveying his rights over a portion of the property to one Veriugopalan. He shall be referred to hereafter as the original landlord. From him, the other landlords (they shall be referred to as transferee landlords) acquired rights over such portion under Ext.A7. Rights over the remaining portions of the property were acquired directly by the transferee landlords under Ext.Al 1.