IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 21ST MARCH 2011 / 30TH PHALGUNA 1932 RCRev..No. 117 of 2008() ------------------------ RCA.162/2006 OF RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, VADAKARA RCP.6/2006 OF RENT CONTROL COURT, NADAPURAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER /RESPONDENT /RESPONDENT --------------------------------------------------------------- PARAYULLAPARAMBATH SREEDHARAN, S/O.KADUNGAN, MANAGING PARTNER, KRIPA MEDICALS MOKERI, KUNNUMMAL AMSOM, VATTOLI DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.N.KRISHNANKUTTY ACHAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN RESPONDENT(S): APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------- 1. ARIMBIL NEENA KUMARI, D/O NANU SWASTHAM, VATAYAM AMSOM, DESOM VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. SISTER ARIMBIL VEETTIL NAYANTHARA, D/O.NANU, SWASTHAM, VATAYAM AMSOM, DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21-03-2011 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON IA. No. 1122 OF 2008 DISMISSED SD/- PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. 21-03-2011 SD/- N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. (TRUE COPY) PS TO JUDGE. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------------- RCR. No. 117 of 2008 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of March, 2011 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The tenant is the revision petitioner. In this revision he challenges the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority ordering eviction on the ground of subletting. The allegation of the landlord in the context of subletting is that two rooms which form part of the leasehold premises have been let out by the tenant unauthorizedly to two doctors whose names were mentioned in the statutory intimation notice issued under the proviso to Section 11(4)(i). These doctors were not made parties to the rent control petition. The defence of the tenant was that the doctors are working in the hospital which is being conducted in the entire petition schedule premises and that there is no sublease or transfer. The Rent Control Court on appreciating the evidence adduced by the parties accepted the above RCR.117/08 -2- defence and found that there is no subletting or transfer. The learned Appellate Authority under the impugned judgment reversed the finding of the Rent Control Court. According to the Appellate Authority, as it is not disputed that two doctors are conducting consultancy in these two rooms and as the doctors are strangers, the tenant has a duty to establish the jural relationship between the tenant and the two doctors in occupation of the rooms. According to the learned Appellate Authority, the above burden is to be discharged by adducing better quality evidence than mere oral evidence. In that view of the matter, the Appellate Authority chose to interfere with the order of the Rent Control Court and ordered eviction on the ground under Section 11(4)(i). 2. In this revision grounds are raised challenging the judgment of the Appellate Authority ordering eviction under Section 11(4)(i). Though notice was served the respondents RCR.117/08 -3- landlord have not turned up before this Court. We have heard Sri.P.N.Krishnankutty Achan, learned senior counsel for the revision petitioner. Even though Mr.Krishnankutty Achan submitted at the outset that the petition for eviction was not maintainable as the statutory notice contemplated by the proviso to Section 11(4)(i) had not been issued, we are not able to accept the above argument. We hold that the rent control petition was certainly maintainable as the statutory notice had been issued. But Mr. Achan's submissions touching the merits of the matter have appeal. Mr. Achan submitted that the very purpose of the lease was for conducting a hospital. Hospitals cannot be conducted without doctors. The alleged sub-lessees are only doctors working in the hospital. When two doctors attached to a hospital are found to be in occupation of two rooms in the hospital the inference to be drawn normally is that they are in occupation of the premises as doctors of the hospital and RCR.117/08 -4- not as sub-lessees or transferees. But then the learned Appellate Authority has ordered eviction mainly on the reason that no documentary evidence was produced by the revision petitioners to show that the doctors presently in occupation of the premises are doctors employed by the hospital. We feel that the revision petitioners should be given opportunity to produce the above documents and prove before the Rent Control Court that the doctors in occupation of the two rooms are only doctors attached to the hospital and not unauthorized transferees from the tenant. 3. We notice that the building is now fetching a monthly rent of Rs.1900/- only. According to us, the above rate is too low and the building would fetch much more if the same is let out today. We are therefore inclined to re- fix the rent tentatively with effect from 1st April, 2011. It is open to either parties to move the Rent Control Court under RCR.117/08 -5- Section 5 for regular fixation of fair rent. Till fair rent is fixed regularly, the revision petitioner shall pay rent at the rate of Rs.3000/- per mensem with effect from 1-4-2011. The result of the above discussion is as follows: The RCR is allowed and the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority and the order of the Rent Control Court to the extent the same relates to eviction sought under Section 11(4)(i) are set aside. RCP is remanded to the Rent Control Court for holding further enquiry regarding the ground of subletting. It is open to the revision petitioner to produce documents which will show that the doctors in occupation of the two rooms are doctors attached to the hospital or employed by the hospital. If the revision petitioner wants to adduce any further evidence for substantiating their contention, they should be permitted by the Rent Control Court to do so. If the landlord wants to adduce counter evidence, the landlord also should be RCR.117/08 -6- permitted to adduce such counter evidence. The Rent Control Court is directed to complete the enquiry and pass revised orders within two months of the court reopening after mid-summer holidays. Till fair rent of the building is regularly fixed, the revision petitioner shall pay rent at the rate of Rs.3000/- per mensem with effect from 1-4-2011. The parties will enter appearance before the Rent Control Court on the day the court reopens after mid-summer holidays. (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) (N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) ksv/-