Point of Law: Word "void" has a relative rather than an absolute meaning. It only conveys the idea that the order is invalid or illegal.

ORDER :

C.S.Sudha, J.

This rent control revision under Section 20 of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (the Act) is filed against the judgment dated 12/04/2016 in R.C.A.No.22/2008 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority-I, Thiruvananthapuram. The appeal was preferred by the petitioner/landlord against the order dated 21/02/2008 dismissing R.C.P.No.28/1988. The respondent/tenant in the R.C.P. and the respondent before the Appellate Authority is the revision petitioner herein. The respondents herein are the legal representatives of the original petitioner. The parties and documents will be referred to as described in the R.C.P.

2. The R.C.P. was filed seeking eviction of the respondent/tenant under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act. The petitioner alleged that the petition schedule building along with 2.90 cents of property had been purchased by him from Harihara Iyer as per Ext.A1 sale deed dated 10/09/1986. The respondent is the tenant of the building on a monthly rent of Rs.60/-. The respondent had paid rent by way of money order to Harihara Iyer till the execution of Ext.A1 sale deed. After execution of Ext.A1 sale deed, the respondent was intimated that the ownership of the property had passed to the petitioner and was also requested to pay the future rent to the latter. However, the respondent refused to attorn to the petitioner. The respondent has defaulted payment of rent from September 1986 onwards. The petitioner is residing in a rental building for a monthly rent of Rs.600/-. The petitioner has no other building of his own in his possession within the city. Therefore he bona fide needs the petition schedule building for his own residence with family. Though the respondent was requested to vacate the building, he has refused to do so and hence the R.C.P. claiming eviction under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act. The petitioner has also denied the contention raised by the respondent in his reply that he is a Kudikidappukaran of the petition schedule building. According to the petitioner, the building is not a hut and also that the respondent, a Government servant, is not entitled to claim Kudikidappu right over the building.

3. The respondent/tenant filed counter to the R.C.P. denying the existence of any landlord-tenant relationship between the parties. According to him, the building was initially taken on rent by his mother Gouri Amma from Harihara Iyer in the year 1958 on a monthly rent of Rs.3/-. Gouri Amma who was residing in the building along with her family, passed away in the year 1975 and her leasehold right over the building devolved on her husband and five children including the respondent. The husband of Gouri Amma passed away in the year 1976 and the leasehold right has now vested on the five children of Gouri Amma. The building, a hut as defined under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (the KLR Act), is more than 50 years old. At the time of its construction, the cost was less than Rs.750/-. Gouri Amma and thereafter the respondent had reconstructed the building at their own expense.

The respondent has been in peaceful possession of the building along with his mother and subsequent to his mother's death, the respondent has been paying rent without default in continuation of the rental arrangement. The respondent is not having any land or building other than the schedule building and therefore he is a Kudikidappukaran as defined under the provisions of the KLR Act. After the demise of the respondent's father, Harihara lyer, the original landlord, had made several attempts to evict the respondent and his family members from the scheduled building, but was unsuccessful. It is thereafter Ext.A1, a sham document, has been created in favour of the petitioner, though Harihara lyer had no alienable right over the property. The petition is devoid of any bona fides. The allegation that rent at the rate of Rs.60/-was being paid, is false and incorrect. The need alleged is only a