IMPORTANT POINTS
• The rent control court has jurisdiction and power to consider the question, whether there is any landlord-tenant relationship, in all circumstances, where there is no denial of title or claim of permanent tenancy.
• The denial of landlord-tenant relationship would oust the rent control petition from the jurisdiction of the rent control court under Section 11(4)(c) of the Act, if only the denial of the landlord-tenant relationship arises out of denial of title or claim of permanent tenancy. In the absence of denial of title or claim of permanent tenancy, the mere denial of landlord-tenant relationship only would not, under any other circumstance, oust the rent control petition from the jurisdiction of the rent control court and such rent control petition shall not be considered under the second proviso to Section 11(1) of the Act.

K HARILAL, J.

1. The questions that emerge for consideration in this revision are given below:

1. Whether the denial of landlord-tenant relationship, invariably made in all facts and circumstances, would amount to denial of title, falling under second proviso to Section 11(1) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 [for short, the Act].

2. Whether the denial of landlord-tenant relationship, without denial of title, would oust the rent control petition from the jurisdiction of the Rent Control Court, by the operation of the second proviso to Section 11(1) of the Act.

2. The revision petitioners are the legal heirs of the deceased original tenant, who died during the pendency of the rent control petition, and got impleaded subsequently in the rent control petition. The respondent herein is the landlord, who filed R.C.P.No.3/2011 against the original tenant under Section 11(2) and 11(3) of the Act, seeking an order of eviction. (The parties are referred to as in the rent control petition).

3. According to the petitioner/landlord, the petition schedule building belongs to him by virtue of a partition deed and at the time of partition, the deceased original tenant was in occupation of the tenanted premises. The petitioner entrusted the tenanted premises with the respondent/original tenant on 01.04.1998 by an oral lease. The petitioner/landlord now wants the petition schedule shop room, for conducting a jewelry business and he has no other buildings of his own in his possession to start the proposed business. Thus he bond fide needs the petition schedule shop room.

4. The respondents/tenants raised preliminary objection contending that the rent control court has no jurisdiction to entertain the rent control petition filed by petitioner/landlord as there was no landlord-tenant relationship between the petitioner and the respondent. He emphatically denied the contention that the tenanted premises was leased out to him by the original petitioner on 01.04.1998 on an oral lease on a monthly rental basis @ Rs.3,000/-. He further contended that the first respondent or any of the respondents have never took the plaint schedule shop room on lease or on any basis from the petitioner or anybody; and there is no landlord-tenant relationship between the petitioner and the first respondent or any of the respondents. The petition schedule building is occupied by a partnership firm, in which the first respondent was also a partner. Originally the partnership firm was constituted by Hamza Haji, the father of the petitioner, along with his brother and daughter and they were conducting a textile by name 'Ashamsa Textile'. After the death of Hamza Haji, the partnership firm was reconstituted by adding the petitioner and other legal heirs of Hamza Haji. Subsequently, the first respondent and two others were inducted to the firm. Thus, the first respondent conducted business in the tenanted building as a partner only. There is no lease transaction between the petitioner and the first respondent with respect to the tenanted premises. Thus, the rent control court has no jurisdiction to consider the rent control petition and grant any relief claimed therein.

5. The preliminary objection pertaining to the jurisdiction was considered by the rent control court as a preliminary issue and arrived at a finding that the denial of title is found to be bona fide, so also in view of the second proviso to Section 11 of the Act, the rent control court has no jurisdiction to try and decide the case, and hence, dismissed the rent control petition.

6. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner/landlord preferred R.C.A.No.7/2014 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kalpetta and the appellate authority, after re-appreciating the evidence on record, reversed the findings of the rent control court and allowed the appeal on a finding that the denial of title of the landlord is not bona fide. Thus, the legality and propriety of the divergent findings under the