Vannathamveettil Yoonus vs Vannathamveettil Moidu

Pius C. Kuriakose, J.—Under challenge in this writ petition under Article 227 is Ext.P4 order passed by the Rent Control Court, Nadapuram. Responding to the notice sent by the Rent Control Court in respect of an eviction petition filed against the petitioner, the petitioner, the alleged tenant, filed statement of objections. It was contended that the petitioner in the RCP, the landlord, has no title over the building in question. It was also contended that on the basis of a final decree for partition passed in a suit filed by the co-owner of the petitioner in the RCP, the petitioner in the RCP has been dispossessed and hence the Rent Control Petition, in as much as the same is filed by a person who has ceased to have any title and who has actually been dispossessed by the Execution Court in a final decree for partition, is not maintainable. Under Ext.P4 order the learned Rent Control Court has held that, the Rent Control Court is preliminarily concerned about the existence of landlord tenant relationship between the parties and not about paramount title over the building in question. In that view of the matter, the Court has held that the denial of title is not bona fide. Considering the second question whether the RCP has become not maintainable in view of the final decree passed in the partition suit and the delivery effected in execution of that decree, the learned Rent Control Court, after referring to the provisions of Order 14 CPC and also Section 23 of Act 2 of 1965 and decisions of this Court such as Cheru Ouseph v. Kunjipathumma 1981 KLT 495, Jullunder D and Manufacturing Co. v. Jayadevan 1999 (1) KLT 107 and in Thomas v. Rajan 1984 KLT 147 has taken the view that "the Rent Control Court has no authority to go into the merits of the case at the preliminary stage other than in a circumstance as contemplated under the second proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 11". That Court also observed that even if it is assumed that the Rent Control Court has powers conferred on the civil court under Order 14 Rule 2 CPC, then also the question raised by the petitioner cannot be considered as a preliminary point. The said question, according to the learned Rent Control Court, is a question of fact which can be decided only after evaluating the evidence adduced by both sides.

Even though Sri. Parthasarathy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, addressed very persuasive arguments before us, we are of the view that no case is made out for invocation of the visitorial jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 for correcting Ext.P4. The jurisdiction under Article 227 is invoked only in exceptional circumstances. Having regard to the para meters and guidelines to be kept in mind for invoking the above jurisdiction, it is clear to us that Ext.P4 order is neither per se illegal nor is an order passed without jurisdiction and much less a perverse order in the sense that such an order will not be authored by anybody having reasonable learning and training in law. We decline jurisdiction and dismiss the writ petition in limine.

As for the submission of Sri. Parthasarathy that the finding of the learned Rent Control Court, that the denial of title is not bona fide, is not a correct finding, we make it clear that if the ultimate decision of the Rent Control Court comes to be against the petitioner and if it becomes necessary for the petitioner to prefer an appeal against that order, it will be open to the petitioner to challenge the correctness of the above finding also in that appeal.