The Kerala High Court has reaffirmed the limited jurisdiction of Rent Control Courts, holding that they cannot entertain applications for appointment of Advocate Commissioners to resolve title disputes when tenants deny the landlord’s ownership. This ruling reinforces the statutory boundary between rent control adjudication and civil title litigation, offering critical guidance to practitioners navigating eviction proceedings.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, A.R. Thaha, filed an eviction petition against the respondent, Y. Shajahan, under the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The respondent contested the petitioner’s title, claiming to have acquired ownership through adverse possession over a 3-acre property and seeking demarcation of one cent allegedly in his possession. To substantiate this claim, the respondent moved for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to survey and measure the property.
Procedural History
- 2024: Eviction petition (RCP No. 55/2024) filed by petitioner in Rent Control Court, Kollam
- 2025: Respondent filed I.A. No. 04/2025 seeking appointment of Advocate Commissioner to determine possession boundaries
- 21 January 2026: Rent Control Court dismissed the application, holding it unnecessary to resolve title issues through such an appointment
- February 2026: Petitioner filed this Original Petition (RC) No. 42/2026 challenging the dismissal
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought to set aside the Rent Control Court’s order rejecting the Advocate Commissioner’s appointment, arguing that the court was obligated to determine title under the proviso to Section 11 of the Act.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a Rent Control Court, under the proviso to Section 11 of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, must adjudicate a tenant’s claim of adverse possession through the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner when the tenant denies the landlord’s title.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the proviso to Section 11 mandates the Rent Control Court to decide the issue of title whenever the tenant denies the landlord’s ownership. He contended that the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner was a necessary procedural step to ascertain factual possession and resolve the title dispute conclusively within the rent control forum. Reliance was placed on the principle that rent control courts are empowered to determine all ancillary issues necessary to decide the landlord-tenant relationship.
For the Respondent
The respondent countered that the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner is a procedural tool for measurement, not adjudication. He argued that title disputes rooted in adverse possession are civil matters beyond the scope of rent control jurisdiction. The court’s role under Section 11 is to determine whether a landlord-tenant relationship exists, not to conduct a full-fledged title trial involving possession, title deeds, or long-term adverse use.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the statutory framework of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act and distinguished between adjudicating the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship and determining proprietary rights. It held that while the proviso to Section 11 requires the Rent Control Court to examine title claims raised by tenants, it does not empower the court to use procedural mechanisms like Advocate Commissioner appointments to resolve such disputes.
"The appointment of an Advocate Commissioner is not a mechanism to decide title; it is a tool for physical measurement, which is irrelevant where the dispute is one of ownership through adverse possession."
The Court emphasized that adverse possession claims involve questions of intention, continuity, and exclusivity of possession over years - issues requiring evidence beyond the scope of rent control proceedings. Such disputes must be resolved in civil courts under the Limitation Act and the Transfer of Property Act. The Rent Control Court’s function is confined to determining whether the relationship of landlord and tenant subsists at the time of the petition. Once title is denied, the court may record the denial and proceed with eviction if the tenancy is otherwise established, but it cannot conduct a mini-trial on title.
The Court further noted that allowing Advocate Commissioner appointments in such cases would effectively convert rent control courts into civil courts, undermining the legislative intent of expeditious resolution of tenancy disputes.
The Verdict
The petitioner’s challenge failed. The Court held that Rent Control Courts are not empowered to appoint Advocate Commissioners to adjudicate title disputes arising from claims of adverse possession. The dismissal of the application was upheld as legally correct.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Title Disputes Must Be Separated from Eviction Proceedings
- Practitioners must file separate civil suits for title claims based on adverse possession, even if raised as a defense in eviction proceedings
- Rent Control Courts may record the denial of title but cannot resolve it
- Applications for Advocate Commissioners in such contexts are procedurally invalid and should be rejected outright
Advocate Commissioner Appointments Are Limited to Physical Measurement
- Applications for Advocate Commissioners are permissible only for verifying physical boundaries, structural conditions, or rent calculation parameters
- They cannot be used to gather evidence for title, possession duration, or ownership history
- Courts must scrutinize the purpose of such applications to prevent misuse as a proxy for civil litigation
Proviso to Section 11 Does Not Expand Jurisdiction to Civil Matters
- The proviso to Section 11 requires acknowledgment of title denial, not adjudication of it
- Practitioners should not misinterpret this proviso as granting rent control courts civil jurisdiction
- Eviction petitions may proceed on the basis of tenancy, even if title is contested, provided the tenant admits occupancy
