1. The respondent in a Rent Control Petition against whom orders of eviction are passed under S.11(2)(b) and S.11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rent Control Act') is the revision petitioner.

2. Going by the allegations in the R.C.P., the petition schedule building belongs to the respondent in this revision and the same is only a portion of a larger building. The building was let out to the revision petitioner on 12.4.1970 on a monthly rent of Rs.20/- which was enhanced to Rs.75 in 1979 and again enhanced to Rs.100 in 1981. The allegation in the context of S.11(2)(b) is that rent has not been paid since March, 1985 notwithstanding the issuance of statutory notice. In the context of S.11(3) the allegations are that the landlady who is an employee of the Governor's Secretariat in Raj Bhavan, Thiruvananthapuram and who is presently staying at Chathannoor in Kollam District is finding it inconvenient to attend to her official duties and bona fide needs to accommodate herself and her family in the schedule building.

3. The petition was stiffly resisted by the revision petitioner who contended that there is no landlord-tenant relationship between herself and the landlady. She also contended that the landlady had no right or title over the schedule building and that any document relied on by the landlady for title can only be a sham document. Neither she nor any of her predecessors-in-interest ever took the building on lease. She started residing in the building wayback in 1964, when her grandfather one Damodaran Pillai who was the occupant of the building took her to the same. She also contended that since 1964 she has been in uninterrupted possession of the building adverse to the rights of any other owner and has perfected a title for herself. As regards the claim for own occupation she contended that the landlady never attended to her official duties in Raj Bhavan and has no intention whatsoever to continue her service in the Raj Bhavan since she is permanently settled down in Chathannoor, her matrimonial home a1ongwith her husband. She further contended that the landlady's husband and her mother are very substantial people having many buildings of their own in Thiruvananthapuram City and specific reference was made to a palatial building by name Sanku Chakram in Thiruvananthapuram which allegedly remains vacant and belongs to landlady's mother. It was further contended that the landlady's husband is a doctor who owns a big hospital at Chathannoor and accordingly it was contended that the claim under S.11(3) is not bona fide.

4. On the basis of the pleadings the Rent Control Court formulated four relevant points for determination including the following points:

1. Is there any landlord-tenant relationship between the petitioner and the counter-petitioner?

2. Has the counter-petitioner committed default in payment of rent from March, 1985 as alleged by the petitioner?

3. Is the petitioner in bona fide need of the petition-schedule building?

At trial the evidence on the side of the landlady consisted of Exts.A1 to A16, oral testimonies of PWs.1 to 4 and Ext.C1 commission report. The evidence on the side of the respondent consisted of Exts.B1 to B5 and the oral testimonies of two witnesses CPWs.1 and 2 apart from Ext.X1 report of the State Forensic Laboratory regarding the genuineness of the signatures on Ext.A3 dated 31.1.1979. Answering point No.1 the Rent Control Court found placing reliance mainly on Ext.A3 rent chit and the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory that there is landlord-tenant relationship between the parties. The other two points were also answered in favour of the landlady and accordingly the Rent Control Court ordered eviction under S.11(2)(b) as well as S.11(3) and allowed the R.C.P. with costs.

5. Even though the revision petitioner very actively participated in the trial before the Rent Control Court, her learned counsel did not cross-e