The tenant must provide substantial evidence to support the denial of the landlord's title as per the provisions of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965.

ORDER :

G. Girish, J.

The tenant in R.C.P No.37 of 2012 of Rent Control Court, Ponnani has filed this revision against the concurrent verdicts of the said court and the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Additional District Judge-III), Manjeri, directing the eviction of the tenant from the petition scheduled building, on the ground of arrears of rent envisaged under Section 11(2)(b) and bona fide need of the landlord envisaged under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short ‘the Act’)

2. The petition scheduled building is said to have been leased out to the revision petitioner on 11.02.2012, for a monthly rent of Rs.3,000/-. The respondent would contend that the petitioner committed default of payment of rent from May, 2012 onwards. According to the respondent, he is presently residing at his wife’s house, and hence, he bona fidely requires the petition scheduled building for his own occupation. It is stated by the respondent that the revision petitioner did not care to make payment of the arrears of rent and to vacate the leasehold premises despite receipt of notice sent by the petitioner. With the above contentions, the respondent had approached the learned Rent Controller for the eviction of the revision petitioner from the petition scheduled building on the grounds envisaged under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act.

3. The revision petitioner, on appearance before the Rent Controller, denied the landlord-tenant relationship with the respondent and put forward a contention that the property inclusive of the petition scheduled building originally belonged to her and her children and that the said property happened to be registered in the name of a person, by name, Shanmughan, as security, while availing a loan of Rs.10 lakhs from the said person. The abovesaid Shanmughan is alleged to have obtained several signed stamp papers from the revision petitioner at the time of the above loan transaction. Thus, it is alleged that the present proceedings towards the eviction of the revision petitioner, were initiated by the respondent in collusion with the abovesaid Shanmughan.

4. In the trial, before the Rent Control Court, the Power of Attorney Holder of the respondent was examined as PW1 and one witness as PW2. Exts.A1 to A14 were marked as documents on the part of the respondent. The revision petitioner and her son were examined as RW1 and RW2 respectively and Exts.B1 and B2 were marked as documents on their part. The learned Rent Controller formulated the first point, as to whether there is landlord-tenant relationship between the revision petitioner and the respondent, and arrived at an affirmative finding on the basis of the evidence on record. Thereafter, the other aspects relating to arrears of rent and the bona fide need projected by the respondent were considered, and it was held that the revision petitioner is liable to be evicted from the petition scheduled building, on the ground of arrears or rent and bona fide need of the landlord, envisaged under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act.

5. Though the revision petitioner preferred appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Additional District Judge-III), Manjeri, the learned Appellate Authority declined to interfere with the findings of the Rent Controller, and instead, upheld the verdict directing eviction of the revision petitioner under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act.

6. Aggrieved by the above concurrent findings of the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority, the revision petitioner is here before this Court.

7. The issue to be resolved in this revision is whether the denial of title of the respondent, put forward by the revision petitioner, is bona fide, and whether there is any scope for interference upon the concurrent verdicts of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority, directing the eviction of the revision petitioner from the leasehold premises, on the ground of arrears of rent and bona fide ne