JUDGMENT (Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decretal order dated 13.08.2009 in R.C.A.No.22 of 2007 on the file of the II Additional District Judge at Pondicherry, thereby reversing the fair and decretal order dated 18.09.2006 in H.R.C.O.P.No.7 of 2009 on the file of the learned Rent Controller, Mahe.) 1. The first respondent in this present Civil Revision Petition had filed H.R.C.O.P.No.7 of 2004 on the file of the learned Rent Controller, Mahe under Section 10 (3) (b) of the Pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1969 to direct the respondents therein to quit and deliver vacant possession of the petition schedule property and put the petitioner-Church in possession thereof and for costs. 2. The learned Rent Controller dismissed the original petition filed by the first respondent herein in H.R.C.O.P.No.7 of 2004. Aggrieved by the dismissal, the first respondent herein-Church preferred an appeal in R.C.A.No.22 of 2007 on the file of the II Additional District Judge at Pondicherry and the same was allowed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority. The aggrieved respondents therein, have now come up with the present civil revision petition, who is also the third respondent in H.R.C.O.P.No.7 of 2004. 3. Facts barely needed for the disposal of the present Civil Revision Petition are the following: 3.1. The original petition in H.R.C.O.P.No.7 of 2004 was filed by the first respondent Church herein, by asserting that by virtue of Will dated 27.02.1850 executed by Sophy D' Cruz, the first respondent Church became the owner of the schedule mentioned property and after the death of the executant Sophy D' Cruz, the Will was acted upon. Even before the execution of the Will, dated 27.02.1850, one Mr. Madaticandy Krishnin was inducted as a 'tenant' in the schedule mentioned property. Subsequently, he was evicted by virtue of judgment dated 20.06.1934 passed by the competent Court. 3.2. On 01.03.1947, the first respondent-Church entrusted the petition mentioned property to Alice Gonselvez. After the death of the said Alice Gonselvez, the tenancy right was inherited by her three children namely respondents 1 and 2 therein and the legal representatives of Alice Gonselvez namely, respondents 3 to 5. 3.3. According to the first respondent Church, they are running Educational and other Charitable activities and also imparting religious education. After the death of the said Alice Gonselvez, the tenancy right was inherited by her three children namely respondents 1 and 2 therein and the legal representatives of Alice Gonselvez namely, respondents 3 to 5. 3.3. According to the first respondent Church, they are running Educational and other Charitable activities and also imparting religious education. For the said purpose, the first respondent entrusted the congregation of Sisters of St.Joseph of Cluny to carry out the Christian missionary works and therefore they require the schedule mentioned property to accommodate the Sisters of St.Joseph of Cluny to perform duties of imparting religious education and to do allied social and other church activities. As per the order of Bishop of Diocese of Calicut, the first batch of such Sisters reached Mahe, but they could not be accommodated by the first respondent Church. Therefore, the first respondent Church had taken a rented building, which is situated 3 kms away from the Church, and paying monthly rent of Rs.2,750/- for the same where the Sisters are accommodated. It is also stated that the next batch of Sisters are also likely to reach Mahe during December 2004 and they are also required to be accommodated. Therefore, the original petition was filed by the Church on the ground of owner's use and occupation and to direct the respondents to quit and deliver vacant possession. 3.4. On notice, the respondents in H.R.C.O.P.No.7 of 2004 have filed a counter affidavit claiming right over the suit property and denying the averment that they are tenants thereof. According to the respondents, the Church, by a Deed of Absolute Assignment, dated 19.02.1947 registered in the Registration Bureau as No.92 in Polio No.115 in R.V.132, transferred the title of the petition schedule property in favour of Alice Gonselvez against a sum of Rs.700/-. From the date of execution of such Deed of Assignment, Alice Gonselvez became the absolute owner of the suit property and she was residing thereon. 3.5. After the death of Alice Gonselvez, the respondents have inherited the right over the property. The respondents have also placed reliance on the Release Deed dated 02.04.2001 and Rectification Deed dated 14.01.2002, registered on the file of Sub Registrar Office, Mahe and contended that they have got absolute right over the property in question. The assertion of the first respondent Church that the respondents are tenants in the suit property, is false and incorrect. The respondents have also placed reliance on the Release Deed dated 02.04.2001 and Rectification Deed dated 14.01.2002, registered on the file of Sub Registrar Office, Mahe and contended that they have got absolute right over the property in question. The assertion of the first respondent Church that the respondents are tenants in the suit property, is false and incorrect. There was no Landlord-Tenant relationship between the Church and the respondents and therefore, the question of the Church filing the present petition to vacate them, is not maintainable. 3.6. Even otherwise, there was no bonafide requirement on the part of the Church to accommodate the Sisters of St.Joseph of Cluny. The fact remains that the Sisters are already in possession of their own properties situated at Mahe. Therefore, the plea of the Church as regards “owners' own use and occupation” does not arise in this case. According to the respondents in H.R.C.O.P.No.7 of 2004, the original petition lacks merits and therefore, they prayed for the dismissal of the same. 4. Before the learned Rent Controller, Father Geo Payyappilly examined himself as P.W.1 and two other witnesses were examined as PW.2 and P.W.3. ExA.1 is certified copy of the Assignment Deed, dated 19.02.1947 executed by the Church and it's translated version was marked as Ex.B5. On behalf of the respondents, Margret Getty Gene Gonasalvez was examined as R.W.1 and another witness was examined as R.W.2 and Exs B1 to B12 were marked. That apart, exhibits Ex.X1 to X4 were marked as court documents. 5. The learned Rent Controller, on analysing the oral and documentary evidences, had concluded as follows:- (a) There was no Landlord-Tenant relationship between the Church and the respondents. (b) When there is a dispute as regards to the ownership of the property, it cannot be resolved by the Rent Controller, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 10 of the Pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1969 and the Church has to only institute a Civil dispute to resolve the ownership dispute. (c) To prove that there was relationship of Landlord and Tenant, the petitioner Church has not produced any document. (d) By interpreting Ex.A.1 Assignment Deed, the learned Rent Controller concluded that Alice Gonselvez was given absolute right over the property and she became the title holder of the suit property. In such circumstances, the question of Landlord-Tenant relationship between the parties will not arise. (d) By interpreting Ex.A.1 Assignment Deed, the learned Rent Controller concluded that Alice Gonselvez was given absolute right over the property and she became the title holder of the suit property. In such circumstances, the question of Landlord-Tenant relationship between the parties will not arise. (e) The learned Rent Controller also concluded that the Sisters of St.Joseph of Cluny were not accommodated in a rental building as alleged by the petitioner. If it is so, the petitioner could have marked some documentary evidence to substantiate the same. In the absence of any document produced by the Church, the learned Rent Controller concluded that there is no bonafide requirement on the part of the petitioner Church, on seeking eviction of the respondents. For all these reasons, the learned Rent Controller had dismissed the original petition filed in H.R.C.O.P.No.7 of 2004 by the Church. 6. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Rent Controller, Mahe, the first respondent Church filed an appeal in R.C.A.No.22 of 2007 before the learned II Additional District Judge, Pondicherry. The learned Appellate Judge, set aside the judgment of the learned Rent Controller and allowed the Appeal on the reasoning that:- (i) Ex.A.1 does not in any manner transfer the title of the suit property in favour of Alice Gonselvez. On perusal of ExA.1, the Appellate Authority has come to a conclusion that Alice Gonselvez was only holding the property as a 'tenant' and not otherwise. (ii) By pointing out Exs.X1 to X5- court documents, the Appellate Authority concluded that the documents clearly shows that the title of the property vests with the Church. (iii) The revenue records stood in the name of the Church. If really the title has been passed on to Alice Gonselvez, she would have mutated the revenue records and paid the taxes and charges in respect of the suit property to the Revenue Authorities. However, the fact remains that the Adangal and Chitta registers under Exs.X1 and X.2 stand in the name of the first respondent Church. (iv) The Appellate Court also concluded that although Ex.A1 is of the year 1947, Alice Gonselvez had obtained 'No Objection Certificate' from the Parish Priest on 23.08.1985. If really Alice Gonselvez had acquired title to the property, there is no necessity for her to seek 'No Objection' from the Parish Priest to put up a building. (iv) The Appellate Court also concluded that although Ex.A1 is of the year 1947, Alice Gonselvez had obtained 'No Objection Certificate' from the Parish Priest on 23.08.1985. If really Alice Gonselvez had acquired title to the property, there is no necessity for her to seek 'No Objection' from the Parish Priest to put up a building. (v) The first respondent -Church also examined P.W.2 Deputy Tahsildar, who deposed and supported the existence of Exs.X.1 and X.2. Therefore, the learned Appellate Judge concluded that the first respondent Church has clearly proved the averments made in the original petition and accordingly, set aside the order passed by the learned Rent Controller and allowed the appeal. Aggrieved by the judgment passed by the Appellate Court, the third respondent therein had preferred the present revision against the Church. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would vehemently contend that the Appellate Authority had misconstrued Ex.A.1 and set aside the well considered order passed by the learned Rent Controller. According to the learned counsel, P.W.1 clearly established that there was an Assignment given to the revision petitioner's mother-in-law Alice Gonselvez by the first respondent Church, vide Assignment Deed dated 19.02.1947. The Assignment Deed was given by the Church, on receipt of a valid consideration of Rs.700/-. Such a statement made by P.W.1 was also corroborated by P.W.2 and P.W.3. Thus, it is very clear that Ex.A.1 was intended to convey the suit schedule property absolutely in favour of Alice Gonselvez. While so, the question of Landlord-Tenant relationship does not arise in this case. Further, the First Appellate Authority has totally ignored the Settlement Deeds registered, which was registered in favour of the respondents in the Original Petition by the competent Authorities. This would abundantly make it clear that it was the respondents in the Original Petition, who are not only in possession of the property in question, but also had derived the right to execute Settlement Deeds among themselves. However, the Appellate Authority has totally ignored the Settlement Deeds filed before the learned Rent Controller under Exhibits Exs.B5 to B9. 8. It was further contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the learned Rent Controller has rightly pointed out that if Alice Gonselvez was a tenant, then the Church would have regularly received the rent from her. 8. It was further contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the learned Rent Controller has rightly pointed out that if Alice Gonselvez was a tenant, then the Church would have regularly received the rent from her. In the present case, there is no semblance of documents forthcoming to show that the Church had either demanded rent from Alice Gonselvez or received rent at any point of time. This would clearly show that there was no Landlord- Tenant relationship between the parties. According to the learned counsel, Alice Gonselvez and her legal representatives were in possession and enjoyment of the property in question on their own rights. Such right has been clearly proved and established by them. While so, the first Appellate Court erred in allowing the Rent Control Appeal filed by the Church and prayed for allowing the present Civil Revision Petition. 9. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent Church, which is the contesting respondent, has vehemently opposed the civil revision petition. According to him, Alice Gonselvez and her legal representatives, though claimed to have acquired title, have not produced any revenue records to prove their title. Merely because they were in possession of the property, will not ipso facto confer them any right over the petition mentioned property. P.W.2, Deputy Tahsildar, has clearly deposed about the existence of the revenue records in the name of the first respondent Church. While so, no exception could be taken to the findings rendered by the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority has come to a definite conclusion that the title of the property does not gets transferred in favour of Alice Gonselvez by virtue of Ex.A.1. ExA.1 is nothing but an Assignment of right in favour of Alice Gonselvez to remain in possession of the property belonging to the first respondent Church and it will not confer her or her legal representatives any right over the petition mentioned property. In such view of the matter, he would submit that the Appellate Authority is right in allowing the Appeal filed by the first respondent Church and there is no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the first Appellate Court. 10. The learned counsel for the first respondent Church also placed reliance on the decision made by this Court in S.Sugumaran Vs. 10. The learned counsel for the first respondent Church also placed reliance on the decision made by this Court in S.Sugumaran Vs. Seenu @ Natarajan reported in 2000 1 L.W.897 wherein, it has been held that when a tenant denied title of the landlord, the Rent Controller can very well go into the same and scrutinise as to whether such a plea has been raised bona fide or with an intent to protract the proceedings.. 11. Heard the learned counsel appearing on both sides and perused the materials placed before this Court. 12. At the outset, it must be noted that the learned Rent Controller Court in its order dated 18.09.2006 in H.R.C.O.P.No.7 of 2009 has rendered a finding that in exercise of the powers conferred under the Pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1969 it cannot go into the question of title. This conclusion reached by the Rent Controller is per se illegal. It is trite that the Rent Controller had the trappings of the Civil Court and it is empowered to go into the question of title interse between the parties to the original petition. When there is dispute with respect to title among the parties or if a tenant disputes the ownership of the landlord, such questions can very well be gone into by the Rent Controller by appreciating the oral and documentary evidence. Therefore, the findings rendered by the learned Rent Controller declining to go into the question of title among the wrangling parties cannot be countenanced by this Court. Therefore, the reasoning assigned by the learned Rent Controller that it has no power to deal with the dispute over the title is liable only to be interfered by this Court. In this context, this Court is fortified by the decision of this Court made in S.Sugumaran's case (cited supra) wherein it was held as follows:- “12. ......It is clear from the above decisions that a mere denial will not oust the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller. Court will have to scrutinise the evidence and conclusion will have to be arrived. While arriving at the conclusion, the Court will have to find out whether there are materials in support of the plea being upheld by the Civil Court and if the case is tried by the Civil Court, there is higher chance of success. In this case, Rent Controller has not entered such a finding. While arriving at the conclusion, the Court will have to find out whether there are materials in support of the plea being upheld by the Civil Court and if the case is tried by the Civil Court, there is higher chance of success. In this case, Rent Controller has not entered such a finding. Mere production of Ex.R1 and evidence of RW2 were held as sufficient to oust the jurisdiction. Even evidence of RW2 was not fully considered by the Rent Controller” 13. The original petition has been filed by the first respondent Church for ejectment. According to the first respondent, under Ex.A.1, Alice Gonselvez was given right to remain in possession. On perusal of Ex.A1 and the contents contained therein, this Court is of the view that Ex.A1 will not partake the character of a Sale Deed or Settlement Deed, thereby alienating or convening the property in favour of Alice Gonselvez. In fact, much controversy has been raised among both the parties as regards the validity or enforceability of Ex.A.1. Therefore, Ex.A.1, Assignment deed, dated 19.02.1947 is required to be looked into. Ex.A.1 reads as follows:- “We, the President, Members and Treasurer of the Church Council at Mahe: B.Gonsalvez President F. De Rozario Secretary M. Motha Church Warden Re. Father Marie Abel Treasurer Have hereby assigned, delivered and conveyed in favour of the lady named Mrs.Alice Gonselvez, residing at Mahe, with obligation of guarantee for all kinds of debt, trouble and evictions and any other general hindrance, a house situated in the land of Sophy D' Cruz, at Mahe, at Moundock Desam near the Indian Post Office, with is now in your exclusive possession, built in stones and non burnt lumps of earth, non planked and covered with eaves which the Council got delivery from the former occupant Mr.Madaticandy Krishnin, as per judgment delivered by the Court of justice of peace with extended jurisdiction of Mahe, on 20th June 1934 and notified on 24th July of the same year and delivered by virtue of process verbal report of the Bailiff dated 4th August of the same year. The assignment and possession given as above have been accepted by Mrs.Alice Gonselvez. The assignment and possession given as above have been accepted by Mrs.Alice Gonselvez. The present assignment is made against a sum of Rupees Seven Hundred, the said sum of Rupees Seven Hundred has been counted and handed over this day by you, Mrs.Alice Gonselvez, in good coins of legal tender and that We, the President, Members and Treasurer of the Church Council at Mahe acknowledge the same. It is agreed that mutation of the demise assigned as above, shall be made in your name and you will pray personally the tax due to the state. In future, the Council will have no right or claim or action over the house assigned above and you will pay every year the dwelling tax of Rs.10/- against receipt. Of the above this is a deed made and executed in triplicate by Mr.B.Gonsalvez in the presence of two under signed witnesses on 19th February 1947.” 14. Thus, by virtue of Ex.A1, the possession of the property was given to Alice Gonselvez. However, when Alice Gonselvez intended to put up a construction over the property, she approached the Parish Priest of the first respondent Church in the year 1985 seeking 'No Objection Certificate'. If really the title to the property had been passed on to Alice Gonselvez, there is no necessity for her to seek for' No Objection Certificate' from the Parish Priest. Furthermore, from the date of execution of ExA.1 Assignment Deed, the name of the first respondent Church continues to remain in the revenue records and it was changed neither by Alice Gonselvez nor by her legal representatives till the date of filing of original petition by the first respondent Church. Therefore, this Court is of the view that under Ex.A.1, title to the property has not been conveyed to Alice Gonselvez. In other words, Ex.A1 is opposed to the provisions of Section 54 of The Transfer of Property, besides it is not registered before the competent registering authorities. 15. Similarly, Ex.A1 is not intended to confer any title to Alice Gonselvez or to alienate the suit property permanently in her favour. In other words, Ex.A1 is opposed to the provisions of Section 54 of The Transfer of Property, besides it is not registered before the competent registering authorities. 15. Similarly, Ex.A1 is not intended to confer any title to Alice Gonselvez or to alienate the suit property permanently in her favour. In such circumstances, on the strength of exhibits Exs.X1 to X5, coupled with the deposition of P.W.2 Deputy Tahsildar, this Court finds that the title to the suit property continued to vest with the the first respondent Church and therefore, the first respondent Church is entitled to maintain the Rent Control original petition to evict the respondents therein. 16. As regards to the averments of the first respondent Church to accommodate the Sisters of St.Joseph of Cluny to continue the religious performances of the Church, it is to be noted that undoubtedly, the Church is carrying out various activities such as Educational and other Charitable activities, including imparting religious education. For this purpose, the first respondent Church is duty bound to accommodate the Sisters, who are required to perform such activities. This was also clearly averred by the first respondent Church in the original petition. The first respondent had also avered that the Sisters were accommodated in a rented premises, situated 3 kms away from the Church. Even though this was disputed by the respondents in the original petition, by contending that the Sisters are accommodated in their own property, this was not substantiated by them in any manner. While so, this Court is of the considered view that first respondent Church has clearly made out that the property in question is required for them bonafide to accommodate the Sisters for performing religious and charitable activities and such requirement, in the opinion of this Court, is reasonable. 17. In my considered opinion, a Deed of Assignment is contractual and it is revocable in nature, at any time by the Assignor. Admittedly, in the present case on hand, the Deed in question is an Assignment Deed, giving contractual rights 'only' to Alice Gonselvez, with an agreement to pay Rs.10/- as 'dwelling tax' every year and therefore, the first respondent Church are entitled to claim eviction of the revision petitioner from the subject property, on the ground of owner's use and occupation. 18. 18. For all the foregoing reasons, this Court does not find any legal infirmity in the judgment passed in R.C.A.No.22 of 2007, dated 13.08.2009 by the learned II Additional District Judge, Pondicherry. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition stands Dismissed, confirming the judgment passed in R.C.A.No.22 of 2007, dated 13.08.2009 by the Lower Appellate Authority. No costs. In view of the dismissal of the present revision, the third respondent is directed to vacate the subject property and hand over the vacant portion of the same to the first respondent Church, within a period of six(06) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.