The denial of landlord-tenant relationship that arises out of denial of title of the landlord or claim of permanent tenancy alone would fall under Section 11(1) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965.

Headnote:
RENT CONTROL - EVICTION - [KEYWORD] - [KEYWORD] - Denial of landlord-tenant relationship - Bona fide denial - Second proviso to Section 11(1) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 - Maintainability of rent control petition - Landlord's title - Burden of proof - Summary procedure - Civil court jurisdiction.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a tenant, filed a counter statement in a rent control petition filed by the respondent-landlord, denying the landlord's title to the petition schedule building and the landlord-tenant relationship. The petitioner filed an I.A. seeking to decide the maintainability of the Rent Control Petition. The Rent Control Court dismissed the I.A., and the petitioner filed an Original Petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the denial of the landlord's title to the petition schedule building and the landlord-tenant relationship by the petitioner was a bona fide plea. The Rent Control Court failed to consider the materials on record in the proper perspective and the findings in the impugned order went wrong. The High Court set aside the order of the Rent Control Court and dismissed the rent control petition as not maintainable in view of the second proviso to Section 11(1) of the Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the denial of landlord-tenant relationship by the petitioner was bona fide?2. Whether the Rent Control Court erred in dismissing the petitioner's I.A. seeking to decide the maintainability of the Rent Control Petition?3. Whether the rent control petition was maintainable in view of the second proviso to Section 11(1) of the Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The denial of landlord-tenant relationship may not oust the jurisdiction of the Rent Control Court from considering a rent control petition. However, when the plea of denial of the landlord-tenant relationship arises out of denial of title or claim of permanent tenancy, the position is different.2. If the two contentions are so interwoven that a decision on the title of the landlord is mandatory to answer the question whether there exists a landlord-tenant relationship, the bar under the second proviso to Section 11(1) of the Act gets attracted.3. In the absence of denial of title or claim of permanent tenancy, the mere denial of landlord-tenant relationship would not oust the jurisdiction of the rent control court from entertaining the rent control petition.4. The landlord has the burden of proving his title to evict the tenant under Section 11 of the Act.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the Original Petition, set aside the order of the Rent Control Court, and dismissed the rent control petition as not maintainable.

JUDGMENT

Ajithkumar, J. The respondent filed R.C.P. No.32 of 2019 before the Rent Control Court (Munsiff), Sulthanbathery for eviction of the petitioner-tenant under Sections 11(2)(b), 11(3) and

11(4)(i) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act,

1965. The petitioner filed a counter statement denying the respondent's title to the petition schedule building and also the landlord-tenant relationship. He filed I.A.No.1 of 2020 in the R.C.P. seeking to decide the maintainability of the Rent Control Petition. The respondent filed a counter statement. The Rent Control Court after hearing both sides, dismissed

I.A.No.1 of 2020 as per order dated 23.02.2021. Feeling aggrieved of the said order, the petitioner filed this Original Petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. The case of the respondent is that he purchased the landed property having an extent of 27.33 ares along with the petition schedule building by virtue of Sale Deed No.749 of 2018. The petitioner was residing in the said building as a tenant on the basis of a lease agreement dated 15.10.2008. He has been holding over the tenancy and the rate of rent is

Rs.1,000/- per month. Rent since February 2018 has been in arrears. The petitioner sublet the building to three persons, namely, Smt.Mary Sebastian, Sri.Babychan and Smt.Rany Mol and they are in occupation of a portion of the building. The respondent requires the building for his residence. On the said grounds, eviction was sought.

3. The petitioner apart from denying the allegations and pleas about arrears of rent, subletting and respondent's need of the building for his own occupation, set forth a contention that 27.33 ares of land along with the petition schedule building and its adjoining one acre of land originally belonged to his father and document No.4710 of 2008 was happened to be executed by his father just as a security. He contended that he did not execute any rent agreement, but it was fabricated by making use of blank signed stamp papers obtained from him. It is his contention that he happened to borrow money from one Sri.Shibin and as security to the said loan, document No.4710 of 2008 was happened to be executed by his father. Its subsequent conveyance deeds, including the one in favour of the respondent are sham documents. He never paid any rent to the respondent or anyone else. There were criminal cases with regard to the transactions referred to above. On the said grounds, the petitioner challenged the maintainability of the R.C.P.

4. Setting forth those contentions, the petitioner had filed I.A.No.1 of 2020. In the counter statement filed by the respondent in I.A.No.1 of 2020, he denied the allegations about validity of document No.4710 of 2008 in favour of Sri.Shibin and its subsequent conveyance deeds. He also reiterated that the rent agreement was validly executed by the petitioner and there exists a landlord-tenant relationship.

5. The Rent Control Court, after considering Exts.A1 to A8 and B1 to B9(b) and also hearing both sides, dismissed

I.A.No.1 of 2020. The Rent Control Court found that title of the respondent was established from the documents, particularly, Exts.B2 to B8 produced before that court, and therefore, the denial of respondent's title made by the petitioner was without any bonafides.

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

7. The point arises for consideration is whether the order of the Rent Control Court dated 23.02.2021 in I.A.No.1 of 2020 in R.C.P.No.32 of 2019 requires interference.

8. Building bearing door No.XIII/195 of Noolpuzha Panchayat (new number 16/146) is the subject matter in

R.C.P.No.32 of 2019. Ext.P9 is a copy of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document