The Rent Control Court has jurisdiction to proceed with eviction even if there is a dispute of title. A previous finding on title in a related suit is final and cannot be re-agitated in subsequent proceedings.

P.R. Raman, J.

1. This revision arises out of a common judgment dated 11/1/2008 in RCANos. 112 & 114/2004 rendered by the Rent Control Appellate Authority. R.C.A. No. 112/04 was filed by the 2nd respondent herein. Both these appeals were preferred challenging the order of the Rent Controller in R.C.P. No.26/99. The Rent Control Appellate Authority dismissed both these appeals. Aggrieved thereby this revision is preferred.

2. The Rent Control Petition was filed by Vadakke Parammal Kunhimoideen in the capacity as the landlord seeking eviction of the respondent (Chandrasekhara Prabhu) alleged to be the tenant of the building under Sections 11 (2), 11 (3), 11 (4)(i) and 11 (4)(iv) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The petition schedule building and the property in which it situates were obtained by the Rent Control Petitioner in EP.64/95 in O.S. 197/77 of the Sub Court, Thalassery. He obtained delivery of possession of the petition schedule property as per order in E.P.60/97 of the Sub Court, Payyannur. The 1 st respondent (petitioner herein) took the petition schedule building on lease from the prior owner, Cheriya Muhammed Kunhi Haji, on a monthly rent of Rs. 100/- as per Kachit on 1967. Petitioner after purchase in court auction obtained title over the plaint schedule building, and a notice was issued to the 1st respondent intimating the change of ownership of the building and demanding the arrears of rent, from February, 1997. The 1 st respondent sent a reply, but according to the petitioner, on untenable grounds. The 2nd respondent in the rent control petition is conducting an Automobile workshop in a portion of the petition schedule building. It is alleged that the Ist respondent sublet a portion of the building in favour of the 2nd respondent, for which he has no right. Due to the negligent use of the building by the respondents, damages also had been caused to the petition schedule room. The value of utility of the building has been diminished due to the negligent acts. Petitioner requires the petition schedule building bona fide for the occupation of his grandson, Aboobacker Siddique, for the purpose of conducting a wholesale business in Aluminium. Aboobacker Siddique is depending on the petitioner. He has got necessary experience and ability to conduct the business. Neither the petitioner nor Aboobacker has got any other vacant room in their possession for the purpose of conducting the said business. The 2nd respondent was to cause the notice to be returned without receiving the same. The 1st respondent in his reply denied the averments. Since they did not surrender the building, eviction was sought for.

3. The 1 st respondent in his counter statement stated that the petition is not maintainable in law, that there is no landlord-tenant relationship between the 1 st respondent and the petitioner, that the petitioner is not the owner of the petition schedule building and that the title of the petition schedule building was denied. It was contended that the petition schedule building originally belonged to Cheria Muhammed Kunhi Haji. One room was taken by the 1 st respondent on lease on 23/12/1967 and subsequently the other two rooms. While the tenant was in possession of the plaint schedule building, the original owner executed a sale deed in his favour and by virtue of the said document, the title of the original owner vested on the 1 st respondent. The eviction sought for under Sections 11 (2), 11 (3), 11 (4)(i) and 11 (4)(iv) is not sustainable since the petitioner is not having any title over the petition schedule building. The bona fide requirement as alleged is denied and contended that it is only a ruse for eviction. The 2nd respondent is only a partner in the business conducted by the 1 st respondent and he was inducted as a partner with the consent of the original owner.

4. The 2nd respondent filed a counter statement contending that he is not aware of the proceedings in O.S. 197/77, E.P