Kerala High Court
K.Kala vs Manikandan on 11 April, 2025
Author: A.Muhamed Mustaque
Bench: A.Muhamed Mustaque
RCRev. Nos.217/2020 & 220/2020
1
2025:KER:31196
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 21ST CHAITHRA, 1947
RCREV. NO. 217 OF 2020
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 12/10/2020 IN CROSS OBJECTION
IN RCA NO.14 OF 2015 OF RENT CONTROL APPELLATE
AUTHORITY,MAVELIKKARA
REVISION PETITIONER/CROSS APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
K.KALA
AGED 36 YEARS
W/O.MANU, KANDISSERIL VEETTIL,
MAVELIKARA MURI, MAVELIKARA VILLAGE,
ALAPUZHA - 690 101.
BY ADV JOHN BRITTO
RESPONDENTS/CROSS RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 MANIKANDAN
AGED 43 YEARS
KALARIVATHUKKAL KIZHAKKETHIL,
(KANNAN NIVAS), KANDIYOOR MURI,
MAVELIKARA, ALAPUZHA - 690 103.
2 JAYASREE
AGED 41 YEARS
RCRev. Nos.217/2020 & 220/2020
2
2025:KER:31196
W/O.MANIKANDAN, KALARIVATHUKKAL KIZHAKKETHIL,
(KANNAN NIVAS), KANDIYOOR MURI,
MAVELIKARA,
ALAPUZHA - 690 103.
BY ADV VIJITHA V
THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
04.04.2025, ALONG WITH RCRev..220/2020, THE COURT ON 11.04.2025
PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
RCRev. Nos.217/2020 & 220/2020
3
2025:KER:31196
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 21ST CHAITHRA, 1947
RCREV. NO. 220 OF 2020
AGAINST THEJUDGMENT DATED 12/10/2020 IN RCA NO.14 OF 2015
OF RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY,MAVELIKKARA ARISING OUT OF
THE ORDER DATED 07.10.2015 IN RCP NO.5 OF 2014 OF RENT CONTROL
COURT, MAVELIKKARA
REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
K.KALA
AGED 36 YEARS
W/O. MANU, KANDISSERIL VEETTIL, MAVELIKARA MURI,
MAVELIKARA VILLAGE, ALAPUZHA-690 101
BY ADVS.
JOHN BRITTO
SRI.C.A.RAJEEV
RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 MANIKANDAN
AGED 43 YEARS
KALARIVATHUKAL KIZHAKKETHIL, ( KANNAN NIVAS),
RCRev. Nos.217/2020 & 220/2020
4
2025:KER:31196
KANDIYOOR MURI, MAVELIKARA, ALAPUZHA-690 103
2 JAYASREE
AGED 41 YEARS
W/O. MANIKANDAN, KALARIVATHUKAL KIZHAKKETHIL,
( KANNAN NIVAS), KANDIYOOR MURI, MAVELIKARA,
ALAPUZHA-690 103
BY ADV VIJITHA V
THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
04.04.2025, ALONG WITH RCRev..217/2020, THE COURT ON 11.04.2025
PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
RCRev. Nos.217/2020 & 220/2020
5
2025:KER:31196
ORDER
P.Krishna Kumar, J.
The petitioner herein filed an eviction
petition against the respondents under Sections 11(2)
(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent
Control) Act, 1965 ('the Act', for short) before the
Rent Control Court. Though she received a favourable
order from the Rent Control Court, when the
respondents herein preferred an appeal before the Rent
Control Appellate Authority, the eviction order was
set aside by the Appellate Authority and the said
order is under challenge before us. The Cross
Objection preferred by the petitioner was also
dismissed by the Appellate Authority and thus the
petitioner preferred two revision petitions against
the said common order.
RCRev. Nos.217/2020 & 220/2020
2025:KER:31196
2. According to the petitioner, she rented out a
residential building to the respondents for a monthly
rent of Rs.1,000/- on the basis of a rental agreement
executed by the first respondent on 20.05.2013. Later,
from July 2013 onwards, the respondents failed to pay
the monthly rent. The petitioner bona fide requires the
vacant possession of the tenanted building for her own
occupation and hence she preferred the eviction
petition, it is contended.
3. The eviction petition was stoutly resisted by
the respondents by contending that the tenanted
premises and the appurtenant land belong to the second
respondent and that there exists no landlord-tenant
relationship between them. The second respondent was
forced to execute a sale deed in favour of the
petitioner through fraudulent means and thus the
second respondent filed a civil suit before the
Munsiff Court for setting aside the said deed. The
respondents further contended that, as part of a money
RCRev. Nos.217/2020 & 220/2020
2025:KER:31196
transaction between respondent No.2 and the father of
the petitioner, the respondents were compelled to hand
over blank signed stamp papers and the purported rent
deed was fabricated by the petitioner by using the
said stamp papers.
4. We heard the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner and the respondents.
5. The Rent Control Court elaborately considered
the question relating to the existence of a landlord-
tenant relationship and the bona fides in the denial of
title by the respondents and ultimately found that the
recitals in Ext.A4 sale deed would show that
respondent No.2 had transferred her entire right over
the property and the building therein in favour of the
petitioner for a price paid and there is no covenant
for reconveyance of the property on the happening of
some future event and thus the denial of title is not
bona fide. The Rent Control Court further noted that,
respondent No.2 made an admission during cross-
RCRev. Nos.217/2020 & 220/2020
2025:KER:31196
examination that the petitioner is the landlady of the
building.
6. The Rent Control Appellate Authority, on the
other hand, found that the petitioner failed to prove
the landlord-tenant relationship. The Court did not
rely on the rent deed, by observing that apparently it
appears from Ext.A1 that the signature of the
executant has been placed in specifically marked
portions, which probabilise the contentions of the
respondents that it was fabricated document on a blank
stamp paper. The Appellate Authority further noted
that the petitioner has no explanation as to why
respondent No.1 did not sign at the end of the
recitals on page No.2 of Ext.A1 in acknowledgement of
the terms and conditions of the agreement. It is
further observed that the signature of respondent No.1
is available only at the very end of the second page.
The court further disbelieved the version of the
petitioner that Ext.A1 document was brought prepared
RCRev. Nos.217/2020 & 220/2020
2025:KER:31196
by respondent No.1, for the reason that in such a
situation, there was no need for putting an 'x' mark
near the signature. The Appellate Authority further
disbelieved PW3, purportedly an attesting witness of
Ext.A1, on the ground that the most relevant evidence
of attestation of the document was let in through the
attesting witness in reply to a leading question in
chief-examination. The Appellate Authority further
found that the admission made by respondent No.2 that
the petitioner is the landlady of the building was
only a slip of the tongue and that she clarified it
during the re-examination. However, the Appellate
Authority found that there is no genuineness in the
denial of title of the petitioner by the respondents.
7. As the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner strenuously contended that the petitioner
has discharged her burden to prove the genuineness of
Ext.A1 by examining the attesting witnesses and that
the Appellate Authority failed to appreciate the
RCRev. Nos.217/2020 & 220/2020
2025:KER:31196
evidence in the correct perspective, we re-appreciated
the entire evidence in the light of the contentions
raised by both sides. When we inspected the document
in question, we also felt all the doubts expressed by
the Rent Control Appellate Authority. The evidence of
PW1, the petitioner, does not inspire confidence as
she was unable to explain several material questions
put to her by the cross-examiner. She admitted that
the name of the executant of the document is missing
at the concluding portion and there is a gap beneath
the name of the witnesses and that the address of the
attesting witnesses was not entered in Ext.A1. She
also raised a new contention during cross-examination
that Ext.A1 was brought before her by the first
respondent after getting it prepared somewhere. She
conceded that on every page there is an 'x' mark at
the place where the signature is affixed. The evidence
of PW2 and PW3 also suffers several infirmities, as
noted by the Appellate Authority. The above evidence,
RCRev. Nos.217/2020 & 220/2020
2025:KER:31196
in our opinion, is insufficient to prove the landlord-
tenant relationship.
8. In short, we concur with the finding of the
Appellate Authority that the petitioner failed to
prove that the respondents are the tenants. The Rent
Control Court failed to note the above aspects and
arrived at a wrong conclusion in this regard. In
Thankachan v. V.Gireesh Kumar [2022 (1) KHC 521 (DB)],
this Court has held that in such a situation the
remedy open to the petitioner is to approach the Civil
Court for getting possession of the building.
In the result, the revision petitions are
dismissed.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
JUDGE
Sd/-
P.KRISHNA KUMAR
JUDGE
sv
