The court upheld the landlord-tenant relationship, ruling on eviction under the Rent Control Act despite earlier inconsistencies in pleadings.

A. Muhamed Mustaque, J.

The tenant in this revision petition has raised an issue in regard to existence of landlord-tenant relationship. In fact, in a suit filed by the landlord, a decree of eviction was granted, holding that the revision petitioner is the tenant, that means the issue is decided against the tenant. The decree in the suit was marked Ext.A9. The copy of the plaint was marked as Ext.B1. It is true that there are inconsistencies in the pleadings, but, nevertheless, as the issue once decided, it cannot be impeached based on the inconsistent pleadings or lack of pleadings. That question having been answered against the revision petitioner, it is no longer possible for the tenant to contend that there exists no landlord-tenant relationship. 2. In the Rent Control Petition, the landlord’s case is that the rent agreement was executed in favour of his predecessor in interest on 31.07.2006. In fact, there is no such pleading that appears to be, apparently, there in the suit. The suit, though maintainable, cannot be executed in respect of an area covered under the notification of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). If that be the case, the only possible remedy for the landlord is to seek eviction on any of the enumerated grounds under the Act. In this case, the landlord sought eviction under Section 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act. The need projected is found genuine. This is a residential building. Therefore, the tenant is also entitled to protection under the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. We are not intending to upset the findings of fact without an appreciation of the evidence. The tenant also put up a case that the tenant was put in possession pursuant to a sale agreement entered into with the predecessor in interest of the landlord. It is to be noted that the suit filed by the tenant has been dismissed. In view of the categorical finding that she is the tenant in a civil suit, the tenant cannot now contend that she was put in possession pursuant to a sale agreement to avail protection under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act ,1988. This question, apparently, appears to have been answered against the tenant in the civil suit also.

3. We find no scope for interfering with the findings of fact by the appellate authority as well as the rent control court. However, making note of the plea made by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, we grant six months’ time to vacate the building on condition that an affidavit undertaking to that effect shall be filed within four weeks from today before the rent control court.

Accordingly, the revision petition stands dismissed.