BABY Vs. BABU P.PAPPACHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Revision Petition under Sec. 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short "the Act") was filed by the first petitioner in RCP No.39/2002 before the Rent Control Court, Chavakkad. He along with second petitioner in the Rent Control Petition claimed eviction of the legal heirs of original tenant Kakku and their assignees on the grounds of arrears of rent and subletting invoking Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(4)(i) of the Act respectively.

(2.) The Rent Control court ordered eviction on both grounds as per order dated 24.07.2007 after finding that denial of title taken by the contesting respondents before it was not at all bonafide. Respondent No.17 in RCP No.39/2002 who set up a rival title claiming to be the sole owner and occupant of the tenanted premises and also denying the title of the petitioners, alone challenged the order of the Rent Control Court in RCA No.68 of 2007 before the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority set aside the order of the Rent Control Court after holding that denial of title was bonafide and remedy available to the eviction petitioners was to sue for eviction in a civil suit. RCA No.68 of 2007 was allowed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority and RCP No.39 of 2002 was consequently dismissed.

(3.) Being aggrieved, the sole co-landlord who has come up challenging the impugned order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority in this revision, is the first petitioner in the eviction petition. The original second petitioner who is also a co-landlord had already passed away during the pendency of RCA No.68 of 2007 and his legal representatives were timely impleaded in the appeal. Those legal heirs are respondents 27 to 30 in this revision and obviously, this revision proceeds for their benefit since the revision is filed on the grounds common to them also.