Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.
1. This revision under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, for short, the 'Rent Act', is by the respondent in an application for eviction under that Act. He seeks interference with the judgment in an appeal under Section 18 of the Rent Act confirming a preliminary order of the Rent Control Court holding against his plea that the person who instituted the application for eviction does not have title to the building. The question, therefore, is whether such denial of title is bona fide.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
3. In an earlier round inter partes, the Rent Control Court ordered eviction on ground of arrears of rent. That order has become final. Though that order of eviction was vacated under Section 11(2)(c) in view of discharge of liability for rent and statutory incidentals, the order of eviction in those proceedings is conclusive inter partes, on contention of the revision petitioner that he is not a tenant of the building in question and that the person who has instituted the petition before the Rent Control Court is not the landlord. This is trite, in terms of law.
4. The afore-noted position notwithstanding, the admitted fact is that the revision petitioner came into possession from the respondent herein. That was a tenancy arrangement, as found in the earlier proceedings. He had also entered into a contract for sale, under which, he agreed to purchase the building from the landlord. The plea taken is that after that agreement, the tenant came to know that the land on which the building stands, belonged to the Government and, therefore, the building being one fixed on such land, it should be taken as belonging to the Government. We note that on such premise, he did not honour the agreement to purchase the property.
5. Be that as it may, the question whether the land belongs to the Government or not or whether the land and building belong to the person who had instituted the Rent Control Petition is not an issue required to be decided in the case in hand. Any question as between the petitioner in the Rent Control Petition and the State is not germane for decision in the proceedings in hand.
6. Having regard to the definition of the term 'building' under Section 2(1) of the Rent Act and the definition of 'landlord' in Sub-section (3) of Section 2, as also, the definition of 'tenant' in Sub-section (6) of Section 2 of that act, we see no ground to hold that there is bona fide denial of title by the revision petitioner.
7. This takes us to the issue whether the Rent Control Court is shown to have attempted to answer the question of title with reference to the eligibility of a person to hold land in relation to the ceiling limits prescribed under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963. That pursuit was unnecessary in the case in hand. The correctness or otherwise of that finding in such a matter will have no bearing in this litigation and such a finding may some times create considerable confusion, even as between the State and the person who has instituted the Rent Control Petition. Under such circumstances, all such findings and observations in the impugned order of the Rent Control Court and its affirmation by the Appellate Authority will stand vacated. Subject to that, the impugned judgment and order do not call for any interference.
In the result, this revision is dismissed.
Sd/-
(THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) Sd/-
(BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JUDGE) //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE DG