Shajan Joseph K.R. vs U. Devi

K.T. Sankaran, J.—The petitioners are the respondents in R.C.P. No. 48 of 2008 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Ernakulam. The Rent Control Petition was filed by the respondents in this revision under Sections 11(3) and 11(4)(iii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act").

According to the landlords, the building was let out to the tenants on a monthly rental of Rs. 11,445/-. The petitioners/tenants disputed the title of the landlords and they contended that there was no landlord-tenant relationship. They also contended that there was an agreement for sale between the landlords and them and huge amounts were paid in various instalments towards sale consideration.

The Rent Control Court, by the order dated 19.12.2009 held that the denial of title made by the revision petitioners/tenants is not bona fide. That finding was arrived at on the basis of the contentions raised by the revision petitioners that the question of denial of title was required to be considered as a preliminary issue. The Rent Control Court considered the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties and held that the present revision petitioners were inducted as tenants in the buildings and they were not inducted as purchasers.

The revision petitioners/tenants challenged the order dated 19.12.2009 passed by the Rent Control Court in appeal before the Appellate Authority as R.C.A. No. 25 of 2010. The Appellate Authority, after considering the oral and documentary evidence in detail concurred with the view taken by the Rent Control Court and dismissed R.C.A. No. 25 of 2010. The judgment of the Appellate Authority dated 07.04.2010 is under challenge in this revision filed only on 29.5.2014. Meanwhile, the Rent Control Court considered the Rent Control Petition on the merits and allowed it u/s 11(3) of the Act as per the order dated 27.10.2010. The final order passed by the Rent Control Court on the merits, was challenged by the revision petitioners/tenants in R.C.A. No. 24 of 2011 and the Appellate Authority dismissed the same as per the judgment dated 08.11.2013. The revision petitioners/tenants have filed R.C.R. No. 105 of 2014, challenging the final order and the judgment passed on merits by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority.

There is long delay in challenging the judgment of the Appellate Authority dated 07.04.2010 in R.C.A. No. 25 of 2010. That delay is sought to be explained in the affidavit filed by the first revision petitioner stating that a suit filed by the revision petitioners and one Sebastian for specific performance of the agreement to sell in respect of the building is pending before the Civil Court and the revision petitioners were advised to wait for the result in the Rent Control Appeal and the Civil Suits.

If this revision is entertained at this stage, that would have the result of permitting the petitioners to challenge the preliminary finding after the disposal of the main petition itself on merits and after the disposal of the appeal against the order in the main petition on the merits. The revision petitioners having not challenged the judgment of the Appellate Authority disposing of the appeal against the order on the preliminary issue and they having participated in the trial, they are precluded from challenging the order on the preliminary issue at this stage. Not only that the Rent Control Court disposed of the Rent Control Petition on the merits, but the tenants challenged that order in Rent Control Appeal and the Appellate Authority also disposed of the same on the merits. We do not think that the tenants can be permitted to challenge the order on the preliminary issue at this stage.

On the merits as well, the Rent Control Court as well as the Appellate Authority considered the rival contentions and held that the possession of the revision petitioners is that of the tenants and there was a lease of the petition schedule building by the landlords in favour of the revision petitioners fixing a monthly rent. The authorities below also took note of an unregistered agreement under which the tenants originally came into possession as tenants for a period of three years. The documentary evidence in the case was also considered in detail by the authorities below and they came to the conclusion that the payments under Exts.B1 to 10 were not made towards sale consideration as alleged by the revision petitioners. The Appellate Authority also noticed that some of the documents produced by the revision petitioners/tenants are not the originals but only photocopies. Ext.A6, the certificate of deduction of tax at source submitted by the first respondent in the Rent Control Petition (first revision petitioner) before the income tax authorities was heavily relied upon by the Appellate Authority. In Ext.A6, the first revision petitioner admitted that he paid rent to the landlords in respect of the petition schedule building. Ext.A6 would clearly indicate that even according to the first revision petitioner, the relationship between him and the landlords is that of a landlord and tenant. The Appellate Authority also held that if the payments allegedly made by the revision petitioners were towards sale consideration, the same could not be deducted at source as done by them.

The findings arrived at by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority in rejecting the contention of the revision petitioners in respect of denial of title, are findings of fact. The findings were arrived at on the basis of the evidence on record. On carefully going through the order and the judgment of the authorities below, we do not find any illegality, irregularity or impropriety, warranting interference u/s 20 of the Act. Moreover, if the revision is entertained at this stage, it would have serious impact on the disposal of the Rent Control Petition and the appeal therefrom on the merits by the authorities below. For the aforesaid reasons, the Rent Control Revision is dismissed.