O R D E R

Ajithkumar, J The landlord is the revision petitioner. The Rent Control Petition No.7 of 2009 was filed by the petitioner seeking eviction under Sections 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(4)(ii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 before the Rent Control Court (Munsiff), Vaikom. It was allowed in part. Eviction was ordered under Section 11(2)(b) of the Act. Claim for eviction on the other grounds was disallowed. The respondent-tenant carried the matter in appeal by filing R.C.A.No.2 of 2012. The Rent Control Appellate Authority (Additional District Judge-I), Kottayam allowed the appeal. Feeling aggrieved thereof, the petitioner has filed this revision under Section 20 of the Act.

2. The rent control petition was filed by Sri.

Subramanniyam Namboothiri for and on behalf of Eravimangalam Devaswom. It was contended that the petition schedule building belonged to Eravimangalam Devaswom, which is a family temple of the petitioner. It was let out to the father of the respondent as early as on 15.10.1955 by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner. Rate of rent was eventually enhanced to Rs.750/- per month. Rent since January, 1994 has been in arrears. The building is required for the residential purpose of the employees in the temple. The building was used by the respondent in such a way as to cause damages to it. On such grounds, eviction was sought for.

3. The respondent filed a counter statement refuting all the contentions in the petition for eviction. The landlord- tenant relationship is denied. The petitioner's claim that he is the owner of the petition schedule building, is denied. The building does not belong to Eravimangalam Devaswom. A two-roomed building along with the land appurtenant thereto was handed over to the father of the respondent, as per the document executed on 15.10.1955. But the said building is not in existence. It got destroyed due to old age. The father of the respondent constructed a new building having six rooms and a lean to by spending Rs.40,000/- in 1970. The building has been assessed in the name of the father of the respondent. The respondent is in possession and enjoyment of the said building as its owner. The petitioner has no right to claim eviction of the respondent. He has no obligation to pay any rent. The petitioner is not entitled to claim eviction on the ground of bonafide need or on any other ground. Accordingly, the respondent sought to dismiss the petition.

4. The Rent Control Court recorded oral evidence of PW1 and RW1. Exts.A1 to A8 and B1 to B5 series were received in evidence. Denial of petitioner’s title by the respondent and also the denial of landlord-tenant relationship were negatived by the Rent Control Court in the light of the oral evidence and also relying on Exts.A4 and A5. Necessarily, an eviction on the ground of arrears of rent followed.

5. The Appellate Authority, however, on re-appreciation of the evidence, held that there was no landlord-tenant relationship with respect to the petition schedule building between the parties and accordingly the petition for eviction was dismissed on reversing the order of the Rent Control Court.

6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the recitals in Ext.A1, which is an undisputed document, are enough to find that the respondent is the tenant in the petition schedule building. He explained that Eravimangalam Devaswom is a private temple of Mattathu Mana of which the petitioner, Subramanniyam Namboothiri, is the custodian. He has filed the rent control petition for and on behalf of Eravimangalam Devaswom and there is no impropriety in filing such a petition. The learned counsel would further contend that the claim raised by the respondent in O.S.No.66 of 1994, a suit filed by the petitioner and others before the Munsiff's Court, Vaikom, that he acquired title to the building i