The court clarified that a tenant's denial of a landlord's title may be assessed for bona fide elements; erroneous and perverse findings from lower authorities warrant court intervention.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR &

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA MONDAY, THE 16^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 26TH POUSHA, 1944 RCREV. NO. 197 OF 2018 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18.03.2017 IN RCP NO.1 OF 2016 OF RENT CONTROL COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CONCURRING WITH THE COMMON JUDGMENT IN RCA NO.17 OF 2017 DATED 16.01.2018 OF THE RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY-III, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

AJITH NATH AGED 45 YEARS, S/O. VISWANATHAN, VISHWA BHAVAN (A), K.P.II/893, KAZHAKOOTTAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

BY ADVS.

SRI.D.SAJEEV SMT.LIGEY ANTONY RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COUNTER PETITIONER:

ANIL KUMAR AGED 50 YEARS, S/O. VISWANATHAN, VISHWA BHAVAN (B), KAZHAKOOTTAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695582.

THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

P.B.SURESH KUMAR & C.S.SUDHA, JJ.

-----------------------------------------------

R.C.Rev. No.197 of 2018 -----------------------------------------------

Dated this the 16^th day of January, 2023

O R D E R

P.B.Suresh Kumar, J.

The landlord in an eviction petition instituted under Section 11 (2)(b) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (the Act) is the petitioner in this revision petition preferred under Section 20 of the Act. The eviction petition was dismissed by the Rent Control Court holding that denial of the title of the petitioner by the respondent is bona fide and the said decision was affirmed in appeal by the Appellate Authority. The petitioner is aggrieved by the concurrent decisions of the authorities below.

2. The subject matter of the eviction petition is five rooms in a two storeyed commercial building. The respondent is none other than the elder brother of the petitioner. It is alleged by the petitioner in the eviction petition that the building was obtained by the petitioner by virtue of Will No.III/167/2012 executed by his father and that the five rooms referred to in the building were let out orally to the respondent for a period of three years from 01.01.2013 to enable him to continue the already established business which was being conducted in the said premises by their late father. It was also alleged by the petitioner in the eviction petition that the rent agreed to be paid by the respondent to the petitioner for all the five rooms collectively comes to Rs.45,000/- per month and instead of paying rent at the rate of Rs.45,000/- per month, the respondent had paid rent only at the rate of Rs.16,000/- from January, 2013 to September, 2014 and at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per month from October, 2014 to November, 2015. It is on the aforesaid premise that the petitioner sought an order of eviction of the respondent from the premises under Section 11 (2)(b) of the Act. The eviction petition was resisted by the respondent contending that the subject rooms do not belong to the petitioner and that there is no landlord- tenant relationship between the parties. It was stated by the respondent in the objection filed to the eviction petition that the Will referred to by the petitioner in the eviction petition is not a genuine document; that the father of the parties who was the owner of the subject rooms died intestate; that on the death of the father, there was an oral partition in the family, in terms of which the subject rooms were allotted to the share of the respondent and it is on that basis that he is occupying the rooms.

3. The petitioner gave evidence in the proceedings as PW1. Exts.A1 to A19 are the documentary evidence on the side of the petitioner. The respondent did not give any evidence. As noted, the Rent Control Court dismissed the eviction petition holding that denial of the title of the petitioner by the respondent is bona fide and the said decision was affirmed in appeal by the Appellate Authority.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the finding rendered by the authorities