Judgment :-

Basant, J.

Can a bona fide denial of title be raised under the second proviso to Sec.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? There 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 P.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 purchases 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 Venugopalan. 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.A11.

4. Venugopalan-the original landlord claimed eviction against the tenant-Sivananthan under Sec.11(2) of the Act in R.C.P.No.67/95. Later, the transferee landlords got themselves impleaded as supplemental landlords 2 to 4 in that R.C.P. The transferee landlords also, in turn, filed R.C.P.No.156/96 subsequently, claiming eviction, inter alia, under Sec.11(3) of the Act.

5. The sole respondent in these two proceedings is Parthakumar, the so-called tenant. He resisted the claims for eviction. Inter alia, he contended that he is not a tenant. Allotment of the premises of the business to him, on dissolution of the firm and in the light of the family arrangement, was not as a tenant. The original partnership was never a tenant under Sivananthan. The allotment of business under the deed of dissolution and family arrangement was of the running business along with all its properties including the immovable properties in which such business was run. He hence contended that he or the partnership was not a tenant even under Sivananthan. He therefore denied the status of Sivananthan as a landlord as also the rights of the original landlord and transferee landlords. To put it in a nutshell, his contention is that he has title over the buildings in question. Sivananthan, after Exts.A2 and A3 had no title in him over the petition schedule buildings. Consequently, the original landlord and the transferee landlords who all claimed derivative title from Sivananthan have no title at all. They are not the landlords. The par