V. Subhashchandran vs Thankamony and Others

Pius C. Kuriakose, J.—Landlord is the revision Petitioner. He challenges in this revision u/s 20 the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the order of the Rent Control Court dismissing the RCP 9/00 filed by him for evicting the Respondent. The revision Petitioner sought to evict the Respondent invoking the grounds of arrears of rent and non-occupation. Respondent denied the title of the landlord and the Rent Control Court enquired into the question whether the denial of title is bonafide. After the enquiry it was found that the denial of title is bonafide and the Rent Control Court accordingly dismissed the RCP. The learned Appellate Authority under the impugned judgment would endorse the finding of the Rent Control Court and the decision of that Court and dismissed the RCP. Even though several grounds are raised touching the merits of the matter, in view of the submission of Dr. P.S. Krishna Pillai that in a subsequent suit filed by the revision Petitioner the matter is pending by way of appeal A.S. 157/09 before the Sub Court, Mavellikara between the same parties, we are not inclined to go into the merits of the matter. As rightly argued by Dr. P.S. Krishna Pillai even in situations where the Rent Control Court finds that the denial of title raised by the tenant is bonafide, the Rent Control Court is bound, after dismissing the RCP, to relegate the landlord/Petitioner to a civil Court. In the instant case such relegation has not been made. What was done by the statutory authorities was to dismiss the RCP and leave the matter there. We are informed that in anticipation of relegation to the civil Court the landlord filed a suit (which is now pending in appeal) as O.S.217/03 seeking eviction of the respondent. It was dismissed by the trial court and is presently pending before the District Court as A.S.157/09 before the Additional District Court, Mavellikara. In our view the RCR itself can be disposed of observing that the issue as to whether the respondents are liable to be evicted is to be decided in the proceedings which are presently pending before the Additional District Court, Mavelikkara as A.S.157/09. Accordingly we dispose of the RCR observing as above.

As a last submission, Dr. P.S. Krishna Pillai submitted that the decision of the Munsiff Court in O.S. 217/03 to non-suit the revision Petitioner was taken on the basis of the decision in another suit which is presently pending as A.S. 92/99 before the same additional District Court. Sri. P.S. Krishna Pillai wanted us to issue directions to the District Court to dispose of A.S. 92/99 early. We are not inclined to issue any such directions as all the parties in A.S. 92/99 are not before us. It is always open to the revision Petitioner to move the Additional District Court for early disposal of A.S. 92/99. We are sure that if A.S. 157/09 is ripe for hearing, the learned Additional District Judge, Mavelikkara shall dispose of the same at his earliest.