The authorities under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 are not supposed to decide the title in dispute between the parties. Their function is only to ascertain whether denial of title is bonafide. If denial is found to be bonafide, eviction can only be pursued in a civil court.

JUDGMENT :

T.V. Anilkumar, J.

The Revision Petition under Section 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.

4. The contesting respondents in this revision are 1 and 2. They were respondent Nos. 17 and 1 respectively in RCP No.39/2002. In fact, the second respondent-Martha in this revision is one of the legal heirs of deceased Kakku and she had not chosen to contest the eviction petition except to remain ex-parte before the Rent Control Court.

5. Essential facts required for disposal of this revision petition are briefly described below.

6. The tenanted building exclusively belonged to one Kunjaram and she was the undisputed owner of the premises. She died issueless in the month of August 1964 and this too is an undisputed fact. After her death, her legal heirs brought O.S.No.325 of 1972 before the Munsiff's Court, Chavakkad for partition of her assets including the tenanted premises and preliminary and final decrees were passed in the suit. The purported tenant-Kakku was not made a party to the partition suit. The brother of Kunjaram, Shri. Kurian purchased the property inclusive of tenanted building in the court auction held in the final decree proceedings since the court found the property incapable of physical division and distribution among the sharers.

7. Shri. Kurian thus became the owner and after his death, his son-Chinnan who is the second petitioner in the eviction petition and his mother-Kunjayi were impleaded as the legal heirs of the deceased in E.P.45/1987. In the execution proceedings, the legal heirs took symbolic possession of tenanted building and premises on 21.03.1987 subject to the continuance of occupancy right of Kakku over tenanted building. Shri. Kurain's wife sold her undivided half share in the property as per Ext.A2 sale deed dated 02.09.1989 to the first petitioner in the eviction petition. That is how the petitioners in RCP No.39 of 2002 claim to have become the co-owners of the tenanted premises. In other words Smt. Kunjaram, the predecessor-in-interest of the eviction petitioners ceased to be the owner of the property after 21.03.1987 when the property was taken symbolic delivery in execution proceedings by legal heirs of Shri. Kurian. These facts were pro