NARAYANAN K. N. Vs. KHADEEJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant, in revision, challenges the order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority under Sec. 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short 'the Act'), mainly on the reason that the petitioner, who initiated eviction proceedings before the Rent Control Court, was not having title or ownership over the property and that she could not maintain an application for eviction under Sec. 11(3) of the Act. The Rent Control Court upheld the objection and dismissed the R.C.P. under Sections 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(4) of the Act. It was taken up in appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kalpetta, in R.C.A. No. 12/2013 and the finding of the Rent Control Court was reversed by the First Appellate Authority holding that in view of subsequent impleadment of the petitioner's daughter, in whose favour she had given the property, the petition became the one initiated by the lawful owner as the impleadment and consequential amendment, if otherwise not ordered, would revert back to the date of petition and found that the petitioner had established the ground under Sec. 11(3) of the Act. Accordingly, an order of eviction was passed, which is under challenge.

(2.) It is an admitted case that the building was taken on lease by the tenant from the first petitioner, mother. Even at that time, she was not having any interest or ownership over the property as she had given up her right, title and interest over the property to her daughter, the additional second petitioner, by executing a deed of conveyance. The said document of title is neither produced, nor let in evidence by the petitioners. Without producing the above said document of title, they proceeded with the petition and suffered a dismissal before the Rent Control Court. The matter was taken up in appeal and the Rent Control Appellate Authority reversed the order of the Rent Control Court on finding that the application is maintainable by the subsequent impleadment of the additional second petitioner, in whose favour the property was transferred by the first petitioner prior to the application.

(3.) Very serious questions came up for consideration before us, such as:-