IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN &

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR MONDAY, THE 21^ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 2ND PHALGUNA, 1943 R.C.REV. NO. 83 OF 2018 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.11.2017 IN R.C.A.NO.2 OF

2012 OF THE RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY (ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-I), KOTTAYAM AND THE ORDER DATED

29.09.2011 IN R.C.P.NO.7 OF 2009 OF THE RENT CONTROL COURT (MUNSIFF), VAIKOM REVISION PETITIONER:

ERAVIMANGALAM DEVASWAM, REPRESENTED BY SUBRAHMANIAM NAMBOOTHIRI, S/O. NEELAKANDAN NAMBOOTHIRI,AGED 70 YEARS, RESIDING AT MATTAPPALLY MANAYIL, ERAVIMANGALAM KARA, MANJOOR VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT- 686 603.

BY ADVS.

SRI.K.P.RAJEEVAN SRI.P.V.KURIACHAN RESPONDENT:

MURALEEDHARA PISHARADY S/O. GOVINDA PISHARADY, AGED 67 YEARS, RESIDING AT THEKKEPISHARATHU HOUSE, ERAVIMANGALAM KARA, VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN- 686 603.

BY ADVS. SUDHIR GOPI P.BALAN (VYTTILA)

JAMES ABRAHAM (VILAYAKATTU)

P.B.KRISHNAN THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 28.01.2022, THE COURT ON ON 21.02.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

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