The petitioner failed to establish a landlord-tenant relationship, as the evidence presented was insufficient to prove the authenticity of the rental agreement.

ORDER :

P.Krishna Kumar, J.

The petitioner herein filed an eviction petition against the respondents under Sections 11(2) (b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (‘the Act’, for short) before the Rent Control Court. Though she received a favourable order from the Rent Control Court, when the respondents herein preferred an appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, the eviction order was set aside by the Appellate Authority and the said order is under challenge before us. The Cross Objection preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority and thus the petitioner preferred two revision petitions against the said common order.

2. According to the petitioner, she rented out a residential building to the respondents for a monthly rent of Rs.1,000/- on the basis of a rental agreement executed by the first respondent on 20.05.2013. Later, from July 2013 onwards, the respondents failed to pay the monthly rent. The petitioner bona fide requires the vacant possession of the tenanted building for her own occupation and hence she preferred the eviction petition, it is contended.

3. The eviction petition was stoutly resisted by the respondents by contending that the tenanted premises and the appurtenant land belong to the second respondent and that there exists no landlord-tenant relationship between them. The second respondent was forced to execute a sale deed in favour of the petitioner through fraudulent means and thus the second respondent filed a civil suit before the Munsiff Court for setting aside the said deed. The respondents further contended that, as part of a money transaction between respondent No.2 and the father of the petitioner, the respondents were compelled to hand over blank signed stamp papers and the purported rent deed was fabricated by the petitioner by using the said stamp papers.

4. We heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the respondents.

5. The Rent Control Court elaborately considered the question relating to the existence of a landlord- tenant relationship and the bona fides in the denial of title by the respondents and ultimately found that the recitals in Ext.A4 sale deed would show that respondent No.2 had transferred her entire right over the property and the building therein in favour of the petitioner for a price paid and there is no covenant for reconveyance of the property on the happening of some future event and thus the denial of title is not bona fide. The Rent Control Court further noted that, respondent No.2 made an admission during cross-examination that the petitioner is the landlady of the building.

6. The Rent Control Appellate Authority, on the other hand, found that the petitioner failed to prove the landlord-tenant relationship. The Court did not rely on the rent deed, by observing that apparently it appears from Ext.A1 that the signature of the executant has been placed in specifically marked portions, which probabilise the contentions of the respondents that it was fabricated document on a blank stamp paper. The Appellate Authority further noted that the petitioner has no explanation as to why respondent No.1 did not sign at the end of the recitals on page No.2 of Ext.A1 in acknowledgement of the terms and conditions of the agreement. It is further observed that the signature of respondent No.1 is available only at the very end of the second page. The court further disbelieved the version of the petitioner that Ext.A1 document was brought prepared by respondent No.1, for the reason that in such a situation, there was no need for putting an ‘x’ mark near the signature. The Appellate Authority further disbelieved PW3, purportedly an attesting witness of Ext.A1, on the ground that the most relevant evidence of attestation of the document was let in through the attesting witness in reply to a leading question in chief-examination. The Appellate Authority further found that the admission made by respondent No.2