RCR No. 123 of 2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM & THE THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY 2011/16TH PAUSHA 1932 RCR.No. 123 of 2011 ( ) ================== RCA.52/2008 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, ALAPPUZHA IN RCP NO.5/2003 OF THE RENT CONTROL COURT, ALAPPUZHA. REVISION PETITIONER(S)/REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT =============================================================== 1 R.SOMANATHA RAO,S/O.RAMACHANDRA RAO,(72) KAVADITHEKKEMADOM AMBALAPPUZHA. BY ADV.SRI.K.V.SADANANDA PRABHU RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER =================================== 1 N.SELVI,W/O.P.SUDHAKARA,AGED 44 YEARS, T.C.NO.17/2123 HOUSE NO.410 PAI'S ROAD POOJAPPPURA.P.O THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695012. BY ADV. SRI.DINESH R.SHENOY SRI.G.HARIKRISHNAN (TRIPUNITHURA) SRI.MAHESH MENON THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06-01-2011 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## **PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN,JJ** ## **===================== R.C.R. NO. 123 OF 2011** **=====================** Dated this 6th day of January 2012 ## ORDER ## **Pius C.Kuriakose,J.** The alleged tenant/respondent in the Rent Control petition for eviction is the revision petitioner. Parties should be referred to as the tenant and the landlady. The case pleaded by the landlady was that the scheduled building belongs to her by virtue of a sale deed which was executed in her favour in 1982 by the tenant himself and that the building was let out to the tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.75/- upon the tenant executing a rent deed. The tenant has defaulted payment of rent since 10/11/1996. Even though the tenant was intimated of the default by registered notice sent on 12/10/2002, the tenant did not discharge the arrears. Instead he sent a reply disputing the landlady's ownership as well as the execution of the rent deed. 2. The further case of the landlady was that she was residing at Poojappura in Thiruvananthapuram. Her husband is RCR No. 123 /2011 2 facing financial crisis. For that and for various other problems, the landlady has decided to shift her residence to the petition scheduled building, which is situated at Ambalapuzha. The landlady bona fide needs the building for her own occupation. The landlady has no other building of her own in her possession at Ambalapuzha. The tenant preferred P.V.A.No.88/1997 against the landlady before the Revenue Divisional Officer raising untenable allegations. The P.V.A. was dismissed after taking evidence. When the tenant and his family members tried to cause damages to the building, the landlady filed a suit before the local Munsiff Court which was decreed . The tenant is liable to be evicted on the ground of arrears of rent and the ground of own occupation. 3. The tenant resisted the RCP denying the landlady's claim that the building belongs to her. According to the tenant, the building continues to belong to him. In 1982, the tenant was in need of Rs.30,000/-. This amount was paid to him by his maternal aunt Smt.Saraswathi Bhai. Sale Deed No.890/82 as well as the rent chit was executed by him as requested by Smt. Saraswathi Bhai as security for repayment of the loan of RCR No. 123 /2011 3 Rs.30,000/-. These documents were executed on the assurance that necessary reconveyance/release documents will be executed in his favour, once the loan amount is discharged. The sale deed and the rent deed were never intended to be acted upon and they have never come into effect. It is then contended that the possession of the property covered by the sale deed was never obtained by the landlady. The tenant has always continued in possession as the owner. A substantial portion of the loan amount is already paid off. Though the landlady was approached for execution of the release/reconveyance documents, she is adopting delaying tactics. The tenant has renovated the building and has reclaimed a pond in the property spending Rs.2 lakhs. The property is very valuable and the sale deed and the rent deed were executed in the landlady's name only as security for a small loan of Rs.30,000/-. The tenant has never paid rent to the landlady. The decree in O.S.No.141/1998 has been challenged in appeal. 4. Later the statement of objections was got amended by the tenant. It was contended that Saraswathi Bhai passed away on 10/7/1982 and that there is no landlord-tenant relationship RCR No. 123 /2011 4 between the landlady and the tenant. After the death of Saraswathi Bhai, the landlady was approached several times for getting the documents executed but the tenant evaded. The relationship between the landlady's father and the tenant has become strained. It is at the instance of the landlady's father that the eviction proceedings have been initiated. The tenant is depending for his livelihood mainly on the income derived from the business of pappad making, which is carried on in the building. No other suitable building is available in the locality for the tenant to carry on the business. 5.The evidence before the Rent Control Court consisted of Exts.A1 to A12, Exts.B1 to B 11 and the oral evidence of PWs.1 to 3 and CPW1. The court evaluated the evidence and would hold that the denial of the landlady's title raised by the tenant is not bona fide. It was further held that the rent was in arrears and that the need projected by the landlady was bona fide. Accordingly, order of eviction was passed on the ground of arrears of rent as well as bona fide need for own occupation. 6. The tenant carried the matter in appeal. The Rent Control Appellate Authority re-apprised the evidence and would concur RCR No. 123 /2011 5 with all the findings of the Rent Control Court. Accordingly, the R.C.A.was dismissed by the judgment, which is impugned in this revision. 7. In this revision under Section 20, various grounds have been raised assailing the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority. Mr.K.V.Sadananda Prabhu, learned counsel for the revision petitioner addressed arguments before us based on all the grounds. Sri Sadananda Prabhu submitted that in the first instance the Rent Control Court by its order dated 30/1/2003 decided preliminary point as to whether the denial of landladytenant relationship made by the tenant was bona fide one in favour of the tenant. The court held that the denial was bona fide and dismissed the Rent control petition relegating the parties to a civil court. But the landlady preferred an appeal against the above order as R.C.A.No.29/2005 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority. The Rent Control Appellate Authority only reversed the order of the Rent Control Court and found that the denial was not bona fide. The Rent Control Appellate Authority remitted the R.C.P.back to the Rent Control Court for trial . The above order was confirmed by the High Court. RCR No. 123 /2011 6 According to Mr. Sadananda Prabhu, the Rent Control Court had no jurisdiction to investigate the merits of the rent control petition which was once relegated to the civil court on its own earlier finding. According to Mr.Sadananda Prabhu, the very appeal,R.C.A.No.29/2005 was not maintainable in law as the order which was impugned in that appeal was an interlocutory order against which no appeal will lie under Section 18 of Act 2 of 1965. The question of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage of the proceedings. In as much as the order in R.C.A.29/2005 was passed without jurisdiction, the same is liable to be ignored . All orders passed pursuant to the above order are illegal. Mr.Sadananda Prabhu then submitted that Ext.A2 is an unregistered document. The same purports to create lease exceeding a period of one year and being an unregistered undervalued document, the same should not have been accepted in evidence. According to him, the terms of Ext.A2 will show that the lease created is for more than one year. Mr.Prabhu then submitted that O.S.No.390/2007 filed by the revision petitioner for declaration of his title and for injunction in respect of the property ignoring Exts.A1 and A2 is pending. According to RCR No. 123 /2011 7 the learned counsel, eviction proceedings at any rate should be kept in abeyance till that suit is finally decided. 8. Mr.Prabhu attacked the findings regarding bona fides of the need. According to him, landlady’s husband is abroad. Her parents aged 73 and 63 are in Thiruvananthapuram. Her two sisters are living separately. The case that the landlady wants to come over to Ambalapuzha and set up her residence there is unbelievable. The appreciation of evidence by the statutory authorities has been thoroughly erroneous and this has resulted in serious prejudice. In support of the various arguments addressed by him, Mr. Sadananda Prabhu relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in **Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan [A.I.R.1954 SC 340], Kunheema Umma v. Balakrishnan Nair[1967 KLT 629], Ittyvira Mathai v. Varkey Varkey[AIR 1964 SC 907]** and **Sumathi v. Devasan [1991(1)KLT 453]** and also the judgment in **Poulose v. Catholic Syrian Bank [1988(2) K.L.T.599]** . 9. Shri Dinesh R. Shenoy, learned counsel for the respondent-landlady would oppose all the submissions of Mr. Sadananda Prabhu. According to him, the finding that the denial RCR No. 123 /2011 8 of title is not bona fide is a correct finding entered pursuant to the enquiry under Section 11(i) by the Rent Control Appellate Authority and inasmuch as the above finding was entered by this Court, it is not open to the revision petitioner to challenge the same. He referred to Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965 and submitted under the above revisional jurisdiction, this court is not expected to make a reappraisal of the evidence for the purpose of substituting conclusions of fact arrived at by statutory fact finding authorities. According to him, there is no illegality, irregularity or impropriety about the findings entered by the two fact finding authorities. Mr.Dinesh R. Shenoy relied on the judgment of this court in **Kallianikutty Amma v. Velayudhan [1975 KLT 600]** and also the judgment in **Ulahannan Kurien v. Ipe Thomas[1985 KLT 529]** and the judgment in **Sara Umma v. Moideen [2001(2)KLT 343].** 10. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. Though a reappraisal of the evidence is not warranted within the contours of the revisional jurisdiction under Section 20, we have made a quick survey of the evidence particularly Exts.A1, A2, A7, A8, A9 and A10 and RCR No. 123 /2011 9 the oral evidence of PW1. 11. The argument of Sri.K.V.Sadananda Prabhu that RCA No.29/2005 filed by the landlady against the first order passed by the Rent Control Court holding that the denial of landlady's title by the tenant is bona fide and that dismissing the rent control petition relegating the parties to a civil court is not maintainable in law does not appeal to us. Mr.Prabhu's argument was that the above order was an interlocutory order of a procedural nature which did not affect the right of the parties and was not appealable. It is true that interlocutory orders, which are merely procedural and do not affect the valuable rights of the parties, are not appealable in terms of Section 18 of Act 2 of 1965. According to us, the order, which was impugned in RCA No.29/2005, was not a merely procedural interlocutory order which did not affect the rights of the parties. Under that order, the Rent Control Court held that the revision petitioner's denial of the landlady's title, as contemplated by Section 11(1), was a bona fide one. Under that order, the rent control petition was dismissed holding that the rent control court did not have jurisdiction over the matter and that the landlady will have to RCR No. 123 /2011 10 seek relief from a competent civil court. That order, in our view, was an order of considerable consequence and did affect the right of the landlady to evict the tenant under the provisions of the Rent Control Act and also the liability of the revision petitioner to be evicted under those provisions. Mr.Prabhu's argument that the question of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage would appear to be attractive at first blush. But, at the same time it should be noticed that the argument that the RCA was not maintainable as the order, which was passed by the Rent Control Court, was a correct one which did not warrant any interference in appeal. In other words, there is no argument that the Rent Control Court lacked inherent jurisdiction to decide whether the denial of title raised by the revision petitioner is bona fide or not. The argument is only that the appeal was not maintainable as the same was directed against an interlocutory order which did not affect the rights of the parties. The Rent Control Appellate Authority's inherent jurisdiction to deal with the appeals preferred under section 18 (b) is not questioned. According to us, the argument cannot be hold water. It should be remembered in this context that the judgment of the Rent RCR No. 123 /2011 11 Control Appellate Authority allowing RCA NO.29/2005 was challenged by the revision petitioner before the High Court. The High Court turned down the above challenge by Ext.A11 order in RCA NO.145/2007. Ext.A11 order of the High Court has attained finality. It is too late in the day for the revision petitioner to contend that the rent control petition is not maintainable as there is no landlord tenant relationship between the petitioner and the respondent landlady. In this context, we find from the order of the Rent Control Court and the Judgment of the Appellate Authority that the contention that Ext.A1 sale deed in favour of the landlady and Ext.A2 rent chit also in favour of the landlady are sham documents was repelled by a competent civil court also. This would be clear from Ext.A8. Ext.A8 was finalised by the judgment of this court in RSA NO.1084/2004. In short, it is not open to the revision petitioner to contend that the rent control petition is not maintainable against him on account of the absence of any landlord tenant relationship between him and the landlady. The further argument of Mr.Prabhu that Ext.A2 is a void document as it purports to create lease for a period exceeding one year, does not appeal to us. Ext.A2 does not RCR No. 123 /2011 12 purport to create lease exceeding a period of one year . Ext.A2 creates a lease from month to month only, which is not compulsorily registrable. Mr.Prabhu's argument that O.S. No.390/2007 filed by the revision petitioner for declaration of his title and for injunction in respect of the property is pending eviction proceedings should be kept in abeyance till the above suit is finally decided also does not appeal to us. The rent control petition itself was instituted in the year 2003. The question,whether the denial of title is bona fide was decided finally by the High Court. Several parallel proceedings were also there and those proceedings culminated in the landlady's favour. The revision petitioner cannot be permitted to open up new battle fronts once he looses on the main front. If the same is permitted, the litigant public will come to loose faith in our justice delivery system. 12. We shall now come to the correctness of the findings entered by the Rent Control Court regarding the existence of the eviction ground under Section 11 (2) (b) and Section 11 (3). As for the ground under Section 11 (2)(b), in the teeth of the concluded position that the jural status of the revision petitioner RCR No. 123 /2011 13 is that of a building tenant, eviction order under Section 11 (2) (B) has to follow as the rent was not paid by the revision petitioner on his admission. Eviction order under Section 11 (2) (b) can always be got vacated by making requisite deposits under Section 11 (2)(c). 13. Now,it is for us to examine the correctness of the eviction order concurrently passed in favour of the landlady under Section 11 (3). Fervent submissions were addressed before us by Mr.Sadananda Prabhu in the context of the above eviction order. It was submitted that the case that the landlady, who is happily put up presently at Thiruvananthapuram along with her aged parents with nobody else to look after them, intends to come down to Ambalapuzha is unbelievable. Even though there is something unnatural about the need projected by the landlady, we find that she herself gave evidence as PW1. Despite cross examination, she stood firm on her version that she intends to come over to Ambalapuzha for setting up residence along with her husband in the petition schedule building. Her oral evidence inspired the two fact finding authorities under Act 2 of 1965. According to us, when reasonable findings are RCR No. 123 /2011 14 entered by the fact finding authorities on appreciating the evidence on record, this court in revision is not expected to upset those findings. We also notice in this connection, the mandates of sub section (12) of Section 11. If it is revealed that after evicting the revision petitioner, the landlady has not come to occupy the petition schedule building, the revision petitioner can invoke sub section (12) of Section 11 and seek restitution of possession. 14. The argument of Mr.Prabhu that the revision petitioner's eligibility for protection of the second proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11 was not correctly considered by the statutory authorities also does not appeal to us. As rightly noticed by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority, the building in question is a residential building which was let out for residential purposes. There is no cogent evidence to show that the revision petitioner is carrying on any business activity . At any rate, there is no illegality, irregularity or impropriety about the findings entered against the revision petitioner in the context of the second proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11. RCR No. 123 /2011 15 15. The revision necessarily has to fail and the same will stand dismissed. However, considering the special circumstances attending on this case, we direct the Execution Court to summon both sides to the court hall and explore the possibilities of a settlement of the issue between them before ordering delivery. In other words, delivery will be ordered only after the court is convinced that amicable settlement of the issues between the parties is impossible. ## **PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE** **N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.** ks/dpk RCR No. 123 /2011 16 RCR No. 123 /2011 17 RCR No. 123 /2011 18 RCR No. 123 /2011 19 RCR No. 123 /2011 20 RCR No. 123 /2011 21 RCR No. 123 /2011 22 RCR No. 123 /2011 23 RCR No. 123 /2011 24 RCR No. 123 /2011 25 RCR No. 123 /2011 26 RCR No. 123 /2011 27 RCR No. 123 /2011 28 RCR No. 123 /2011 29 RCR No. 123 /2011 30 RCR No. 123 /2011 31 **PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN,JJ ===================== R.C.R. NO. 123 OF 2011 =====================** Dated this ..... ## ORDER ## **Pius C.Kuriakose,J.** The alleged tenant/respondent in the Rent Control petition for eviction is the revision petitioner. Parties should be referred to as the tenant and the landlady. The case pleaded by the landlady was that the scheduled building belongs to him by virtue of a sale deed which was executed in his favour in 1982 by the RCR No. 123 /2011 32 tenant himself and that the building was let out to the tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.75/- upon the tenant executing a rent deed. The tenant has defaulted payment of rent since 10/11/1996. Even though the tenant was intimated of the default by registered notice sent on 12/10/2002, the tenant did not discharge the arrears, instead he sent a reply disputing the landlady's ownership as well as the execution of the rent deed. 2. The further case of the landlady was that she was residing at Poojappura in Thiruvananthapuram. Her husband is facing the financial crisis. For that and for various other problems, the landlady has decided to shift her residence to the petition scheduled building, which is situated at Ambalapuzha. The landlady bona fides the needs of the building for her own occupation. The landlady has no other building of her own in her possession at Ambalapuzha. The tenant preferred P.V.A.No.88/1997 against the landlady before the Revenue Divisional Officer raising untenable allegations. The P.V.A. was dismissed after taking evidence. When the tenant and his family members tried to cause damages to the building, the landlady filed a suit before the local Munsiff Court which was decreed . RCR No. 123 /2011 33 The tenant is liable to be evicted on the ground of arrears of rent and the ground of own occupation. 3. The tenant resisted the RCP denying the landlady's claim that the building belongs to her. According to the tenant, the building cotinues to belong to him. In 1982, the tenant was in need of Rs.30,000/-. This amount was paid to him by his maternal aunt Smt.Saraswathi Bhai. Sale Deed No.890/82 as well as the rent chit was executed by him as requested by Smt. Saraswathi Bhai as security for repayment of the loan of Rs.30,000/-. These documents were executed on the assurance that necessary reconveyance/release documents will be executed in his favour. Once the loan amount is discharged, the sale deed and the rent deed were never intended to be acted upon and they have never come into effect. It is then contended that the possession of the property covered by the sale deed was never obtained by the landlady. The tenant was always continued in possession as the owner. A substantial portion of the loan amount is already paid off. Though the landlady was approached for execution of the release/reconveyance documents, she is adopting delaying tactics. The tenant has RCR No. 123 /2011 34 renovated the building and has reclaimed a pond in the property spending Rs.2 lakhs. The property is very valuable and the sale deed and the rent deed were executed in the landlady's name only as security for a small loan of Rs.30,000/-. The tenant has never paid rent to the landlady . The decree in O.S.No.141/1998 has been challenged in appeal. 4. Later the statement of objection was brought amended by the tenant which was contended that Saraswathi Bhai passed away on 10/7/1982 and that there is no landlady-tenant relationship between the landlady and the tenant. After the death of Saraswathi Bhai, the landlady was approached several times for getting the documents executed but the tenant evaded. The relationship between the landlady's father and the tenant has become strained. It is at the instance of the landlady's father that the eviction proceedings have been initiated. The tenant is depending for his livelihood mainly on the income derived from the business of the pappad making, which is carrying on in the building. No other suitable building is available in the locality for the tenant to carry on the business. The evidence before the Rent Control Court consisted of Exts.A1 to A12, Exts.B1 to B 11 RCR No. 123 /2011 35 and the oral evidence of PWs.1 to 3 and CPW1. The court evaluated the evidence and would hold that denial of the landlady's title raised by the tenant is not bona fide. It was further held that the rent was in arrears and that the need rejected by the landlady was bona fide. Accordingly, the order of eviction was passed on the ground of arrears of rent as well as bona fide need for own occupation. 5. The tenant carried the matter in appeal. The Rent Control Appellate Authority made re-apprised the evidence and would concur with all the findings of the Rent Control Court. Accordingly, the R.C.A.was dismissed by the judgment, which is impugned in this revision. 6. In this revision under Section 20, various grounds have been raised assailing the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Aurhotity. Mr.K.V.SAdananda Prabhu, learned counsel for the revision petitioner addressed arguments before us based on all the grounds. Sri Sadananda Prabhu submitted that in the first instance the Rent Control Court by its order dated 30/1/2003 decided preliminary point as to whether the denial of landladytenant relationship made by the tenant was bona fide one in RCR No. 123 /2011 36 favour of the tenant. The court held that the denial was bona fide and dismissed the Rent control petition relegating the parties to a civil court. But the landlady preferred an appeal against the above order as R.C.A.No.29/2005 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority. The Rent Control Appellate Authority only reversed the order of the Rent Control Court and found that the denial was not bona fide. The Rent Control Appellate Authority remitted the R.C.P.back to the Rent Control Court for trial . The above order was confirmed by the High Court. According to Mr. Sadananda Prabhu, the Rent Control Court had no jurisdiction to investigate the merits of the rent control petition which was once relegated to the civil court by its own earlier finding. According to Mr.Sadananda Prabhu, the very appeal,R.C.A.No.29/2005 was not maintainable in law as the order which was impugned in that appeal was an interlocutory order against which no appeal will lie under Section 18 of Act 2 of 1965. The question of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage of the proceedings inasmuch as the order in R.C.A.29/2005 was passed without jurisdiction, the same is liable to be ignored . All orders passed pursuant to the above order are illegal. RCR No. 123 /2011 37 Mr.Sadananda Prabhu then submitted that Ext.A2 is an unregistered document. The same purports to create lease exceeding a period of one year and being an unregistered undervalued document, the same should not have been accepted in evidence. According to him, the terms of Ext.A2 will show that the lease created is for more than one year. Mr.Prabhu then submitted that O.S.No.390/2007 filed by the revision petitioner for declaration of his title and for injunction in respect of the property ignoring Exts.A1 and A2 is pending. According to the learned counsel, eviction proceedings at any rate should be kept in abeyance till that suit is finally decided. 7. Mr.Prabhu had attacked the findings regarding bona fides of the need. According to him, landlady’s husband is abroad. Her parents aged 73 and 63 are in Thiruvananthapuram. Her two sisters are living separately in Thiruvananthapuram. The case is that the landlady wants to come over to Ambalapuzha and set up her residence there is unbelievable. The appreciation of evidence by the statutory authorities has been thoroughly erroneous and this has resulted in serious prejudice in support of the various arguments addressed by him. Mr. Sadananda Prabhu relied on RCR No. 123 /2011 38 the judgment of the Supreme Court in **Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan [A.I.R.1954 SC 340], Kunheema Umma v. Balakrishnan Nair[1967 KLT 629], Ittyvira Mathai v. Varkey Varkey[AIR 1964 SC 907]** and **Sumathi v. Devasan [1991(1)KLT 453]** and also the judgment in **Poulose v. Catholic Syrian Bank[1988(2) K.L.T.599]** . 8. Shri Dinesh R. Shenoy, learned counsel for the respondent-landlady would oppose all the submissions of Mr. Sadananda Prabhu. According to him, the finding that the denial of title is not bona fide is a correct finding entered pursuant to the enquiry under Section 11(i) by the Rent Control Appellate Authority and inasmuch as the above finding was conferred by this Court. It is not open to the revision petitioner to challenge the same. He referred to Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965 and submitted under the above revisional jurisdiction, this court is not expected to make a reappraisal of the evidence for the purpose of substituting conclusions of fact arrived at by statutory fact finding authorities. According to him, there is no illegality, irregularity or impropriety about the findings entered by the two fact finding authorities. Mr.Dinesh R. Shenoy relied on the RCR No. 123 /2011 39 judgment of this court in **Kallianikutty Amma v. Velayudhan [1975 KLT 600]** and also the judgment in **Ulahannan Kurien v. Ipe Thomas[1985 KLT 529]** and the judgment in **Sara Umma v. Moideen [2001(2)KLT 343].** 9. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. Though a reappraisal of the evidence is not warranted within the contours of the revisional jurisdiction under Section 20, we have made a quick survey of the evidence particularly Exts.A1, A2, A7, A8, A9 and A10 and the oral evidence of PW1. 10 The argument of Sri.K.V.Sadananda Prabhu that RCA No.29/2005 filed by the landlady against the first order passed by the Rent Control Court holding that the denial of landlady's title by the tenant is bona fide and that dismissing the rent control petition relegating the parties to a civil court is not maintainable in law does not appeal to us. Mr.Prabhu's argument was that the above order was an interlocutory order of a procedural nature which did not affect the right of the parties has not appealable. It is true that interlocutory orders, which are merely procedural RCR No. 123 /2011 40 and do not affect the valuable rights of the parties, are not appealable in terms of Section 18 of Act 2 of 1965. According to us, the order, which was impugned in RCA No.29/2005, was not a merely procedural interlocutory order which did not affect the rights of the parties. Under that order, the Rent Control Court held that the revision petitioner's denial of the landlady's title, as contemplated by Section 11(1), was a bona fide one. Under that order, the rent control petition was dismissed holding that the rent control court did not have jurisdiction over the matter and that the landlady will have to seek relief from a competent civil court. That order, in our view, was an order of considerable consequence and did not affect the right of the landlady to evict the tenant under the provisions of the Rent Control Act and also the liability of the revision petitioner to be evicted under those provisions. Mr.Prabhu's argument that the question of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage would appear to be attractive at first blush. But, at the same time it should be noticed that the argument is that the RCA was not maintainable as the order, which was passed by the Rent Control Court, was the correct one which did not warrant any interference in appeal. RCR No. 123 /2011 41 In other words, there is no argument that the Rent Control Court lacked inherent jurisdiction to decide whether the denial of title raised by the revision petitioner is bona fide or not. The argument is only that the appeal was maintainable as the same was directed against an interlocutory order which did not affect the rights of the parties. The Rent Control Appellate Authority's inherent jurisdiction to deal with the appeals preferred under section 18 (b) is not questioned. According to us, the argument cannot be hold water. It should be remembered in this context that the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority allowing RCA NO.29/2005 was challenged by the revision petitioner before the High Court. The High Court turned down the above challenge by Ext.A11 order in RCA NO.145/2007. Ext.A11 order of the High Court has attained finality. It is too late in the day for the revision petitioner to contend that the rent control petition is not maintainable as there is no landlord tenant relationship between the petitioner and the respondent landlady. In this context, we find from the order of the Rent Control Court and the Judgment of the Appellate Authority that Ext.A1 sale deed in favour of the landlady and Ext.A2 rent chit RCR No. 123 /2011 42 also in favour of the landlady are sham documents was repelled by a competent civil court also. This would be clear from Ext.A8. Ext.A8 was finalised by the judgment of this court in RSA NO.1084/2004. In short, it is not open to the revision petitioner to contend that the rent control petition is not maintainable against him on account of the absence of any landlord tenant relationship between him and the landlady. The further argument of Mr.Prabhu that Ext.A2 is a void document as it purports to create lease for a period exceeding one year, does not appeal to us. Ext.A2 does not purport to create lease exceeding a period of one year . Ext.A2 creates a lease from month to month only, which is not compulsorily registered. Mr.Prabhu's argument that O.S. No.390/2007 filed by the revision petitioner for declaration of his title and for injunction in respect of the property is pending eviction proceedings should be kept in abeyance till the above suit is finally decided also does not appeal to us. The rent control petition itself was instituted in the year 2003. The question,whether the denial of title is bona fide was decided finally by the High Court. Parallel several proceedings were also there and those proceedings RCR No. 123 /2011 43 culminated in the landlady's favour. The revision petitioner cannot be permitted to open up new battle front once he loose on one front. If it is permitted, the litigant, the public will come to loose faith in our justice delivery system. 11. We shall now come to the correctness of the findings entered by the Rent Control Court regarding the existence of the eviction ground under Section 11 (2) (b) and Section 11 (3). As for the ground under Section 11 (2)(b), in the teeth of the concluded position that the jural status of the revision petitioner is that of a building tenant, eviction order under Section 11 (2) (B) has to follow as the rent was not paid by the revision petitioner on his admission. Eviction order under Section 11 (2) (b) can always be got vacated by making requisite deposits under Section 11 (2)(c). 12. Now,it is for us to examine the correctness of the eviction order concurrently passed in favour of the landlady under Section 11 (3). Fervent submissions were addressed before us by Mr.Sadananda Prabhu in the context of the above eviction order. It was submitted that the case that the landlady, who is happily put up presently at Thiruvananthapuram along RCR No. 123 /2011 44 with her aged parents when nobody else to look after them, intends to come down to Ambalapuzha is unbelievable. Even though there is something unnatural about the need projected by the landlady, we find that she herself gave evidence as PW1. Despite cross examination, she stood firm on her version that she intends to come over to Ambalapuzha for setting up residence along with her husband in the petition schedule building. Her oral evidence inspired the true fact finding authorities under Act 2 of 1965. According to us, when reasonable findings are entered by the fact finding authorities on appreciating the evidence on record, this court in revision is not expected to upset those findings. We also notice in this connection, the mandates of sub section (12) of Section 11. If it is revealed that after evicting the revision petitioner, the landlady has not come to occupy the petition schedule building, the revision petitioner can invoke sub section (12) of Section 11 and seek restitution of the position. 13. The argument of Mr.Prabhu that the revision petitioner's eligibility for protection of the second proviso to sub section (3) of Sectiin 11 was not correctly considered by the statutory RCR No. 123 /2011 45 authorities also does not appeal to us. As rightly noticed by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority that the building in question is a residential building which was let out for residential purposes. There is no cogent evidence to show that the revision petitioner is carrying on any business activity . At any rate, there is no illegality, irregularity or impropriety about the findings entered against the revision petitioner in the context of the second proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11. 14. The revision necessarily has to fail and the same will stand dismissed. We, however, considering the special circumstances attending on this case, we direct the Execution Court to summon both sides to the court hall and explore the possibilities of a settlement of the issue between them before ordering delivery. In other words, delivery will be ordered only after the court is convinced that the settlement of the issues between the parties is impossible. ## **PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE** RCR No. 123 /2011 46 **N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.** ks/dpk