IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 24TH MAGHA 1929 RCRev..No. 42 of 2008 ----------------------- RCA.70/2006 of VI ADDL.DISTRICT COURT,& RCAA, ERNAKULAM RCP.98/2002 of III ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT & RENT CONTROL COURT, ERNAKULAM. APPELLANT/RESPONDENT: -------------------------------------- HAMZOO, S/O.ABDULLA, SYLCON, KAVITHA THEATRE COMPLEX, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM KOCHI 682035, RESIDING AT "NOORGEHAN", SHENOY ROAD, KALOOR, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-17. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) SRI.AJEESH K.SASI RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. M/S.KAVITHA THREATRE, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM, REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM, REPRESENTED BY TIS MANAGING PARTNER, E.M.JOHNY. 2. E.M.JOHNY, EDAKKATTUKUDIYIL HOUSE, RAMALLOOR, KOTHAMANGALAM. 3. E.M.PAUL, DO, DO. 4. JOSE MATHEW, DO, DO. 5. XAVIER MATHEW, DO, DO. 6. JAMES MATHEW, DO, DO. 7. TOMY MATHEW, DO, DO. 8. MARTIN JOHNY, DO, DO. 9. E.J.SONY, DO, DO. 10. SAJU JOHNY, DO, DO. BY THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N. RAVINDRAN, JJ. R.C.R.P.NO.42 OF 2008. DATED THIS THE 13th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2008 ORDER K.Balakrishnan Nair,J. The tenant is the revision petitioner and the landlords are the respondents. The landlords claimed eviction under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter called as 'the Act'). The Rent Controller allowed the application. The said decision was affirmed by the appellate authority also. Hence, this revision. The brief facts of the case are as follows: 2. The landlords are the owners of a theatre complex. The tenanted building is part of that complex. The tenant was inducted by the original owner of the theatre complex. After the present landlords became the owners, the tenant attorned to them and continued to pay the rent. The tenanted building is required by the landlords for constructing a waiting room for ladies and children, for providing rest room to the security staff R.C.R.42/2008 -2- and also for additional space for parking the cars. The tenant resisted the application contending that the landlords have no title to the tenanted building. A partnership firm is the tenant and not the revision petitioner. So, the R.C.P. filed without impleading the firm is not maintainable. The need urged is only a convenient ruse to evict him. The additional space claimed is unnecessary. At present the theatre complex is having necessary space to meet all the requirements mentioned by the landlords. The revision petitioner-tenant also contended that he is mainly depending on the income from the tenanted building and no other buildings are available in the locality to shift this business. The Rent Controller framed necessary issues. From the side of the landlords, Pws.1 to 3 were examined. From the side of the tenant, Rws.1 to 6 were examined. Exts.A1 to A29, were marked on the side of the landlords and Exts.B1 to B20 were marked from the side of the tenant. Apart from these, Exts.C1 and C1(a) were marked as court Exhibits. Further Exts.X1 to X4 were also marked. As mentioned earlier, relying on the R.C.R.42/2008 -3- evidence on record, both the authorities upheld the claim of the landlord under Section 11(3) of the Act . 3. In this revision, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner mainly contended before us that the partnership firm was the tenant and only the petitioner herein, who was one of the partners alone was impleaded and, therefore, the rent control petition was not maintainable. In support of the said submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that various amounts due to the original landlord were paid from the Bank accounts of the partnership firm. That being so, the findings of the courts below that the petitioner herein alone was the tenant is unsustainable and is against the evidence on record. 4. We notice that the said contention has been considered by the appellate authority in extenso. In the Rent deed, Ext.A27 the tenant is described as K. Hamzoo, Sylcon, aged 65, son of Abdulla residing at Noorjahan, Shenoy Road, Kaloor Desom, Ernkaulam Village. In other words, it is not described as Sylcon Shopping Centre represented by Mr. Hamzoo. The R.C.R.42/2008 -4- mere mention of Sylcon in his address will not make the Sylcon Shopping Centre the tenant. The appellate authority also rightly held that on behalf of the petitioner/tenant the amounts might have been paid from the accounts of a firm. The payment of money made by a firm towards the amount due to the landlords will not make it the tenant of the building. So the said contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted, especially in view of the contents of Ext. A27 rent deed. No other point was urged. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner finally prayed that his firm is running a business there for the last 12 years. So sufficient time may be granted so that he can shift without much difficulties. On this point, we heard the learned counsel for the landlords also. 6. Having regard to the facts of the case, the revision petitioner/tenant is granted six months time from today, on condition that he files an unconditional undertaking before the execution court that he shall vacate the tenanted building within R.C.R.42/2008 -5- six months from today. The undertaking shall be filed within three weeks from today. Needless to say, the arrears of rent, if any, remaining unpaid shall be cleared within one month from today and the rent due for every month shall be paid promptly till the building is vacated. The Revision is disposed of as above. K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE ks. P.N. RAVINDRAN , JUDGE K.R.UDAYABHANU,J. =================== CRL.A.NO. OF 200 JUDGMENT DATE: ......2006 =====================