IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL &

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.

TUESDAY, THE 6^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2024 / 15TH SRAVANA, 1946 RCREV. NO. 36 OF 2024 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.11.2023 IN RCA NO.24 OF

2022 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT KOZHIKODE-III / II ADDITIONAL MACT, KOZHIKODE ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER DATED 18.01.2022 IN RCP NO.80 OF 2014 OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, KOZHIKODE-II REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:

ATHIKOTTU SNEHALETHA AGED 70 YEARS, W/O. SUBRAMANYAN GIRIJALAYAM.

P.O FEROKE, FEROKE AMSOM, NALLUR DESOM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN – 673 631 BY ADVS.

R.K.MURALEEDHARAN ATHIRA A.MENON RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:

K K HAMSA AGED 64 YEARS S/O. KIZHAKKEKOTTAYIL KUNHI MUHAMMED, MELPALLI HOUSE, POTTEKKADU, P.O FEROKE FEROKE AMSOM, NALLUR DESOM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN – 673 631 THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06.08.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT Amit Rawal, J.

The present rent control revision petition is directed against the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kozhikode dated 10.11.2023 in R.C.A. No. 24 of 2022, whereby the order passed by the Rent Controller dated 18.01.2022 in R.C.P. No. 80 of 2014, ordering eviction of the respondent-tenant has been reversed.

2. Succinctly, the facts in brief are that the petitioner-landlord instituted eviction petition against the respondent-tenant seeking eviction of tenant on various grounds including arrears of rent, on the premise that the status of the party in Ext.A1 agreement though was referred to as licensor and licensee, but the intention behind was to lease out the property and take the premises on rent and use for any other purpose, the lessee intended to do, with the condition of security, other conditions which normally are imposed upon the tenant.

3. The respondent-tenant denied the relationship of landlord and tenant but asserted the relationship of licensor and licensee and, therefore, objected the jurisdiction of the rent controller to try the dispute, at the best the remedy would be either a suit for possession or mandatory injunction in a civil court.

4. Since the parties were at variance, the rent controller framed the following issues:

“1) Whether the respondent is the tenant of the petitioner under Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act?

2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get an order of eviction under section 11(2)(b) of said Act?

3) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get an order of eviction under section 11(3) of said Act?

4) Relief and cost?”

5. Both the parties examined witnesses and produced documents as following:

Petitioner’s witness:

PW1 05-11-2021 Snehalatha, D/o.Kunhikrishnan, aged 69 years.

PW2 09-11-2021 Leeba A.S., D/o.Dileep T., aged 44 years.

PW3 11-11-2021 Susina M., D/o.Sivadasan M., aged 36 years.

Petitioner’s exhibits:

A1 01-05-2001 Original license agreement executed between Sarojini Amma and respondent.

A2 25-04-2009 Original Settlement deed No.1553/2009 in Feroke SRO executed by Athikkott Prasad to petitioner.

A3 06-01-2014 Copy of lawyer notice sent by Adv.K.P. Gangadharan to respondent A3(a) 06-01-2014 Original postal receipt A3(b) 06-01-2014 Original postal acknowledgment card.

A4 07-04-2015 Copy of cheque No.077029 dated 07.04.2015 of State Bank of Travancore, Feroke A5 29-06-2000 Mark list of Leeba issued by Bharat Sevak Samaj Kerala Pradesh, Thiruvananthapuram.

A6 30-09-2009 Original receipt book.

Respondent’s witness RW1 23-11-2021 K.K. Hamsa, S/o.Kunhimuhammed, aged 62 years.

Court exhibits C1 18-11-2014 Commission report submitted by Adv.Susina M.

C1(a) 18-11-2014 Sketch submitted by Adv. Susina M.

6. Learned rent controller, on examination of the evidence and the proposition of law and having found that the intention of the parties was to take the premises on rent, allowed the eviction. In the appeal preferred by the tenant, the appellate authority reversed the finding of the rent controller by terming