IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the lower courts' findings that the tenant's denial of title was not bona fide, emphasizing the validity of the lease deed without registration.

ORDER :

1. Aggrieved by the refusal of Rent Control Court and Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thiruvananthapuram to accept the challenge of denial of title raised by the petitioner-tenant as against the respondent-landlord, the petitioner is here before this Court with this revision.

2. The respondent-landlord instituted R.C.P. No. 99 of 2022 before the Rent Control Court, Thiruvananthapuram seeking eviction of the petitioner-tenant from the petition schedule shop room on the ground of arrears of rent and bona fide need envisaged under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). In the above proceedings, the petitioner-tenant came forward with a preliminary objection denying the title of the respondent-landlord over the petition schedule building. The Rent Control Court rightly proceeded with an enquiry on that matter and held as per order dated 24.08.2023 that the denial of title and challenge against landlord-tenant relationship raised by the petitioner-tenant, are not bona fide. Though the petitioner preferred appeal against the above finding by filing R.C.A. No. 20 of 2023 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thiruvananthapuram, he could not succeed. The Rent Control Appellate Authority, as per the judgment dated 13.11.2023, upheld the finding of the Rent Control Court that the denial of title was not bona fide. Now, in this revision filed by the petitioner-tenant, he would contend that the Rent Control Court and Rent Control Appellate Authority went wrong in refusing to accept his challenge in the above regard.

3. The point to be decided is whether the findings of the Rent Control Court and the Rent Control Appellate Authority in the matter of denial of title raised by the petitioner-tenant, are liable to be interfered with.

4. The rental arrangement between the petitioner and the respondent is said to have been renewed on 05.01.2022 for a period of 11 months on the basis of a lease deed executed on that day. The above lease deed is seen to have been marked before the Rent Control Court as Ext.A1. The execution of Ext.A1 is not disputed by the petitioner-tenant. On the other hand, she would contend that the said document was not executed with an intention to create a lease. Ironically, it is seen that the petitioner-tenant had taken a diametrically opposite version in a suit instituted by her as O.S. No. 1870 of 2022 before the Munsiff Court, Thiruvananthapuram for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the respondent-landlord from disturbing her possession in the plaint schedule property therein, which is the very same petition schedule building in the rent control proceedings. The respondent-landlord had produced the copy of the plaint before the Rent Control Court and got it marked as Ext.A7. The schedule of property in the said suit is seen marked as Ext.A8 from the part of the respondent-landlord. Adverting to Exts.A7 and A8, the Rent Control Court as well as the Rent Control Appellate Authority have observed in the respective order and judgment, that the petitioner-tenant, in the aforesaid suit instituted by her against the respondent-landlord, had clearly admitted the execution of Ext.A1 rent deed as well as her capacity as the tenant of the petition schedule building. So also, the plea set forth by the petitioner-tenant in that suit, claiming protection of the Act and the option of the respondent-landlord to evict her by resorting to the said Act, has been dealt with in the impugned order and judgment of the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority. There is absolutely no illegality or impropriety in the observations of the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority in the above regard. It is apparent from the conduct of the petitioner-tenant that what she has been doing is blowing hot and cold to somehow or other cling on to the petition schedule building and to prevent the respondent-landlord from getting possession of the sa