Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1965 (Kerala), Ss.11 & 18 - The Rent Control Court is not having the power to decide the question of title - Hence the question of impleading on additional party claiming right over the building does not arise - Even if a 3rd party has got right over the property, the same is not lost by the order of the Rent Control Court.

The Rent Control Act contains provisions for eviction of the tenant.  As a matter of fact, the provisions can be said as a protection against the arbitrary eviction of the tenant.  The grounds of eviction on the basis of which the landlord can obtain eviction are stated under S. 11 of the Act.  It is only when the landlord is able to prove that grounds mentioned under S. 11 that he can obtain an order of eviction.  Normally, a tenant is not entitled to deny the title of the landlord, since he is estopped from contending the same.  But there may be circumstances where the landlord would have lost his title.  In those circumstances, he is given an opportunity to raise

@page-KLT689#

 before the Rent Control Court the above contentions.  The proviso to S. 11(i) states that if a tenant denies title of the landlord or claims right of permanent tenancy, then the Rent Control Court will have to find out whether the claim or denial is bona fide and if it finds that it is bonafide, then the landlord will be entitled to sue for eviction in a civil court.  The Rent Control Court is not having the power to decide the question of title.  As already stated, the matter is entirely between the landlord and tenant.  If the landlord proves that he will be entitled to eviction, there is no question of deciding the title.  In spite of the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court, a third party can claim a right over the building in appropriate proceedings.  Since the question of title is not involved, the question of impleading the additional party claiming right over the building does not arise.  It cannot be said that the dispute between the landlord and tenant in rent control proceedings affects a third party.  This is because what is decided by the Rent Control Court is that only whether a tenant is liable to be evicted.  Even supposing a person, who is sought to be impleaded has got right over the property, that right is not lost by the order of the Rent Control Court.                              (para. 6)

S.V. Balakrishna Iyer                                                                 For Petitioner

S.Venkitasubramonia Ayyar (Sr. Advocate),

V. Giri & V.N. Achutha Kurup                                                   For Respondents

ORDER

S. Sankarasubban, J.

Petitioner in the Rent Control Petition is the revision petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition.  He filed the petition to evict the tenant on the ground of arrears of rent and own use.  According to the averments in the eviction p etition, the petition schedule building belonged to the petitioner and his brother Karim.  Karim died on 8.2.1986.  The tenant took the building on rent for the purpose of exhibition of film, on 1.11.1983 for a period of 10 years.  A rent chit was executed on 11.11.1983.  After the death of the petitioner’s brother, as per Muhammadan Law, his share devolved on the petitioner and has become the absolute owner of the building.  The tenant was informed about this on 12.12.1986.  The tenant has been paying rent to the petitioner.  It is further stated that the tenant defaulted payment of rent.

2.  A counter affidavit was filed by the tenant.  In the counter affidavit, the tenant raised the contention that the petitioner is not the absolute owner of the property.  Before the death of Karim, he had executed a Wakf deed in respect of his share of the property and the property was vested with the Muslim Education Society, of which P.O.J. Lebba is the President, Muslim Education Society, Kollam.  While so, P.O.J. Lebba, President of the Muslim Education Society filed I.A. No. 2364 of 1988 for impleading himself as additional second respondent in the Rent Control Petition.  In the affidavit accompanying the petition, he has stated that it is true that the building

@page-KLT690#

 belongs to the petitioner and his brother Karim.  But after the death of Karim, his share did not devolve on the petitioner.  The petitioner filed objection of the same.  The Rent Control Court took th e view that the application for impleadment is not maintainable and hence dismissed the same.  Against that an Appeal was filed by the aforesaid Lebba.  The Appellate Authority allowed the appeal and the impleading petition.  The Appellate Authority took the view that Lebba has prima facie proved his contentions.  His right in the property has to be examined.  Further it is stated that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are applicable to the Rent Control Court.  Hence, there is no bar in the impleadment.  It is against the above order that the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.  In the Civil Revision Petition, the first respondent is P.O.J. Lebba and the second respondent is the tenant.

3.  Sri. S.V. Balakrishna Iyer appeared for the petitioner and Sri. V. Giri appeared for the first respondent.

4.  Sri. Balakrishna Iyer submitted that the order impleading the first respondent is illegal.  According to him, no right of the first respondent is at stake.  He contended that as per the definition of landlord in the Rent Control Act even a person, who receives rent, can file petition for eviction.  Further, he contended that the petition for eviction is a matter exclusively between the landlord and the tenant.  The Rent Control Court is a court of limited jurisdiction.  If the tenant denies title of the landlord, the Rent Control Court can go into the question whether the denial is prima facie tenable and if it is prima facie is proved, then it can refer th e parties to a suit.  It was further contended that even if the contention of the additional respondent is accepted, he become only a co-owner.  The mere fact that the petitioner obtained an order it will not in any way jeopardise the rights of the additional respondent.

5.  Sri. V. Giri, learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that in so far as his client has stated that he has got right over the property, he is a necessary party to the petition.  He submitted that the Rent Control Court can pass an order for eviction only if it is satisfied that the landlord is entitled to get order of eviction.  In deciding the question whether the landlord is entitled to get an order of eviction, it has to find out whether the landlord has got tittle and in that way, the question of title arises before the Rent Control Court.  If the Rent Control Court finds that the landlord has got title, then that affects the rights of his client.  Further it is submitted that what the court below has allowed only is to implead and has not gone into the merits of the matter.  Sri. Balakrishna Iyer in reply further contended that the order rejecting the impleading application is not appealable under S. 18 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, since it does not affect the rights of the parties.

6.  After hearing both sides and after giving our anxious consideration in the matter, we are of the view that the order passed by the Appellate Authority cannot be

@page-KLT69 1#

 sustained.  The Rent Control Act contains provisions for eviction of the tenant.  As a matter of fact, the provisions can be said as a protection against the arbitrary eviction of the tenant, the grounds of eviction on the basis of which the landlord can obtain eviction are stated under S. 11 of the Act.  It is only when the landlord is able to prove that grounds mentioned under S. 11 that he can obtain an order of eviction.  Normally, a tenant is not entitled to deny the title of the landlord, since he is estopped from contending the same.  But there may be circumstances where the landlord would have lost his title.  In those circumstances, he is given an opportunity to raise before the Rent Control Court the above contentions.  The proviso to S. 11(i) states that if a tenant denies title of the landlord or claims right of permanent tenancy, then the Rent Control Court will have to find out whether the claim or denial is bona fide and if it finds that it is bonafide, then the landlord will be entitled to sue for eviction in a civil court.  The Rent Control Court is not having the power to decide the question of title.  As already stated, the matter is entirely between the landlord and tenant.  If the landlord proves that he will be entitled to eviction, there is no question of deciding the title.  In spite of the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court, a third party can claim a right over the building in appropriate proceedings.  Since the question of titl e is not involved, the question of impleading the additional party claiming right over the building does not arise.  It cannot be said that the dispute between the landlord and tenant in rent control proceedings affects a third party.  This is because what is decided by the Rent Control Court is that only whether a tenant is liable to be evicted.  Even supposing a person, who is sought to be impleaded has got right over the property, that right is not lost by the order of the Rent Control Court.

7.  Learned counsel for the first respondent brought to our notice certain decisions of this Court wherein it has been held that even though the Rent Control Court is a Tribunal, it has got all the trappings of a Court and the Tribunal can invoke the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure in the interest of justice.  There is no quarrel with this proposition, But we don’t think, such a provision can be invoked in the present case.

8.  So far as the present case is concerned, we find that the tenant has denied the title of the landlord and has referred to the claim of the additional respondent.  Since that was raised, the Rent Control Court will definitely go into that question.  Hence, we are of the view that the order allowing the first respondent to implead in the Rent Control Petition is illegal and is hereby set aside.

9.  Civil Revision Petition is disposed of as above.  Since the Rent Control Petition is of the year 1987, we direct the Rent Control Court to dispose o f the Rent Control Petition, within a period of six months from today.  If the question of denial of title is raised, the Court may decide all points that arise for consideration