JUDGMENT SOUMEN SEN, C.J .

Heard Mr. Saji Varghese, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P. Santhalingam, learned Senior Advocate instructed by Mr. Abraham K. George, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The respondent in the eviction proceedings is the petitioner herein. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Additional Munsiff Rent Controller in R.C.P. No. 183 of 2024, wherein it was held that the relationship between the parties is that of landlord and tenant. While arriving at the said finding, the learned Rent Control Court placed reliance upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Associated Hotels v. R.N. Kapoor¹ Beena v. Ramachandra Rao ² and the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Velayudhan Nair v. Young Mens Christian Association³

3. The first question that arises for consideration is

1 AIR 1959 SC 1262

2 (2004) 3 SCC 595

3 2016 (2) KHC 640

whether the learned Rent Control Court could have at all proceeded to adjudicate upon the issue of existence of a landlord–tenant relationship when, in paragraph No. 3 of the statement of facts,