NABEESA ABDUL KHADER Vs. SURESH KURIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondents in RCP No. 4/2002 on the files of Rent Control Court, Kottayam, who were respondents in RCA No. 8/2004 of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kottayam, are the revision petitioners. They are aggrieved by the finding entered by the Rent Control Appellate Authority in reversal of the finding of the rent control Court that their denial of title of the landlord / respondents is not bona fide.

(2.) The rent control petition was instituted by the respondents invoking the grounds of arrears of rent (S.11(2)(b)) and bona fide need for own occupation (S.11(3)) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The rent control petition was sought to be maintained by the respondents on their averment that the petition schedule building was let out to the husband of the first revision petitioner, one Sri. Abdul Khadar in 1980 on a monthly rent of Rs.75/- and that upon the demise of the above said Abdul Khadar, revision petitioners being his wife and children are continuing in possession as tenants. The contention of the revision petitioners was one of total denial of the rental arrangement pleaded by the respondent / landlord. According to them Sri. Abdul Khadar had come into possession of the petition schedule building way back in 1959, on the strength of an agreement for sale executed by one Padipurackal Chackochan @ Jacob on the terms of which Abdul Khadar was liable to pay total sale consideration of Rs.1200/- against which Rs.1000/- was readily paid. With reference to the document of title relied on by the respondent / landlord, the contention raised by the revision petitioners was that conveyances were executed in favour of the predecessor of the respondent / landlord experimentally and that the predecessor of the respondent never obtained possession on the basis of those conveyances. It was further contended that the revision petitioners have perfected title over the petition schedule building by adverse possession for more than 12 years in denial of the apparent title obtained by the predecessor of the landlord and that the title if any obtained by the predecessor of the landlord has been lost to him by prescription. It is accordingly contended that the revision petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule building as full owners.

(3.) Though on the terms of the objections filed by the revision petitioners there was warrant for formulating a preliminary question in terms of second proviso to S.11(1), the learned rent control Court did not formulate any such preliminary question. Instead, the rent control petition was enquired into and at trial documents Exts. A1 to A52 were produced and witnesses PWs 1 to 3 were examined on the side of the respondent landlord and documents Exts. B1 to B9 were produced and witness-CPW 1 was examined on the side of the revision petitioners. The Rent Control Court on conclusion of evidence formulated the following issues: