IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2008 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1930 RCRev..No. 65 of 2008() ----------------------- : REVN.PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO.2 ---------------------------------------------------------- N.C.RAJAN, S/O. NADAKKAMBURATH CHOYIKUTTY, RAROTH AMSOM, DESOM, THAMARASSERY, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K. RESPONDENTS: RES. 1 & 2/PETITIONERS ----------------------------------- 1. CHAPPANGATHOTTATHIL PARU @ PARVATHY, D/O. LATE KARAPPAN, RAROTH AMSOM, VEZHUPOOR DESOM, THAMARASSERY P.O., KOZHIKODE. 2. SREELATHA, D/O. LATE SANKARATHU RAMU, CHAPPANGATHOTTATHIL HOUSE, -DO- -DO- 3. N.P.RAMANUNNI, S/O. NADAKKAMBURATH CHOYIKUTTY, LINEMAN, K.S.E.B., RAROTH AMSOM, DESOM, THAMARASSERY P.O., KOZHIKODE. BY THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.3.2008, THE COURT ON 07/04/2008 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RCR No.65 of 2008 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Order Balakrishnan Nair, J. The 2nd respondent in RCP No.163/05 and the appellant in RCA No.138/06 is the revision petitioner. He is the alleged sub-tenant. The respondents 1 and 2 are the landlords and the third respondent was the tenant of the petition scheduled building. The landlords claimed eviction under Sections 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(4)(i) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. The case of the landlords was as follows : In the family partition, the petition scheduled building was allotted to the second respondent with life interest to the first respondent. The building was entrusted to the third respondent on 30.11.1984 for a monthly rent of Rs.250/- which was enhanced to Rs.375/- from 01.05.2005. He defaulted payment of the rent from March 2005 and also sublet the room to the revision petitioner without the consent or knowledge of the landlords. The second respondent bona fide requires the room for running a tailoring shop. So, the RCP was filed. RCR 65 OF 2008 2 3. The appellant as well as the third respondent admitted that the scheduled room was taken on oral lease. But the enhancement of rent was denied. The allegation of sub-lease was also denied. When the third respondent got employment in the KSEB, he surrendered the scheduled room to the landlords in 1996 and then under an oral lease, it was entrusted to the revision petitioner and he is conducting a stationery shop there. An adjacent room bearing Door Number VIII/873 was in the possession of the third respondent. It was surrendered in 1996. The same was given on oral lease to the revision petitioner and in the year 2003, he surrendered the same to the landlords. Thereafter, they entrusted the room to the wife of the third respondent. So the allegation of sub-lease is denied. The respondents demanded enhanced rent @ Rs.400/-. Though the rent at the old rate for the months of May and June of 2005 was offered, the landlords did not accept the same. So it was sent by money order. 4. Before the Rent Controller, Exts.A1 to A4 were marked from the side of the landlords and Exts.B1 to B15 were marked from the side of the tenants. PW1, the 2nd respondent herein was examined as the witness of the landlords. From the side of the respondents, RW1 (third respondent) and RW2 (revision RCR 65 OF 2008 3 petitioner) were examined as witnesses. The Rent Controller ordered eviction under all the grounds claimed by the landlords. The revision petitioner herein who was the second counter petitioner in the RCP filed RCA No.138/06. The said appeal was dismissed upholding the finding of the Rent Controller. The Appellate Authority found that no document has been produced to prove the payment of rent for the room VIII/872, which is the scheduled room. The rent was found to be @ Rs.375/- and it was also found that it was remaining in arrears from 01.05.2005. So the order for eviction under Section 11(2)(b) was upheld by the appellate authority. The appellate authority also found that there is no evidence to show that the third respondent herein has surrendered the room bearing No.VIII/872 and it was later entrusted to the revision petitioner. Admittedly, the revision petitioner is in possession of the room. Therefore, the claim for eviction under Section 11(4)(i) was also upheld. The claim of the 2nd respondent to get the room for running a tailoring shop was found to be genuine. The contention of the tenant that she does not require to start a tailoring shop was discarded. In the result, the order for eviction under Section 11(3) was also upheld by the appellate authority. RCR 65 OF 2008 4 5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that Ext.B1 consent letter issued by the revision petitioner would prove that he was in possession of the scheduled room. But, Ext.A4 document would show that the room number in Ext.B1 was wrongly mentioned. Ext.A4 is a consent letter relating to the adjacent room, issued by the revision petitioner to the 1st respondent herein. In that, the mistake in the room number shown in Ext.B1 is corrected. Therefore, the claim of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner relying on Ext.B1 cannot be accepted. The learned counsel then submitted that there is evidence to show that the rent paid by the petitioner was received by the 1st respondent landlord. The said claim of the revision petitioner was considered by the authorities below and found that the rent paid can be in relation to the adjacent room which was admittedly in his possession for some time. The said view taken by the authorities below is a plausible view on facts. The learned counsel relied on certain receipts issued by the panchayat and also the local unit of the Vyapari Vyavasayi Samithi to support his case. We have perused them. The receipts are normally issued based on the claim of the revision petitioner and they cannot bind the landlords. Therefore, the said contention also cannot be accepted. The Rent Controller as well as the RCR 65 OF 2008 5 appellate authority took into account those documents. We find that the view taken by the authorities below cannot be said to be illegal or improper warranting interference by this court invoking its revisional jurisdiction. We agree with their reasons and conclusions. In the result, the revision petition fails and it is dismissed. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR,JUDGE 07.04.2008 P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE sta RCR 65 OF 2008 6