IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI MONDAY, THE 24TH JANUARY 2011 / 4TH MAGHA 1932 CRP.No. 795 of 2000(D) ---------------------- RCA.48/1996 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY (ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE) ALAPPUZHA. RCP.15/1994 of THE PRL.MUNSIFF AND RENT CONTROL COURT, CHERTHALA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): 1ST RESPONDENT/1ST RESPONDENT & ADDL. REVISION PETITIONERS:- --------------------- 1. JOSEPH ANTONY, KUNNUMMEL PARAMBU VEEDU, EAST OF ST. MICHAELS COLLEGE, MAYITHARA, CHERTHALA. (DIED). ADDL.2. KUNJAMMA ANTONY, W/O. JOSEPH ANTONY, KUNNUMMEL PARAMBU VEEDU, EAST OF ST. MICHAELS COLLEGE, MAYITHARA, CHERTHALA. 3. ANSON, AGED 10 YEARS (MINOR), DO. DO. 4. THOMACHAN, AGED 2 YEARS (MINOR) DO. DO. (MINOR ADDL. PETITIONERS 3 AND 4 ARE REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN, ADDL. 2ND PETITIONER). ADDL. PETITIONRES 2 TO 4 ARE IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DATED 17-1-2011 IN I.A. No.3059/2005 in C.R.P. No.795/2000. BY ADV. SRI.P.JACOB VARGHESE, SENIOR ADVOCATE SMT.V.A.GANGUJA SRI.K.R.MICHAEL SRI.G.GOPAKUMAR (CHERTHALA) RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS & 2ND RESPONDENT/APPELLANTS & 2ND RESPONDENT;- --------------- 1. JOSEPH SKARIA, S/O. JOSEPH THARIAN, KAVALAM VEETTIL, VADAKKUMMURI, CHERTHALA VADAKKU VILLAGE. 2. MERCY SKARIAH, W/O. JOSEPH SKARIAH, DO. DO. 3. G. MANI, BEAUTY HAIR DRESSING, THEKKE ANGADY, CHERTHALA. ADV. SRI.C.RASHEED RAWTHER FOR R3 SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN FOR R1,R2 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: mn A.K.BASHEER & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~==~=~=~= C.R.P. No. 795 of 2000 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~==~=~=~= Dated this the 24th day of January, 2011 O R D E R Barkath Ali, J. Challenge in this revision under section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) by the defeated tenant is to the judgment and decree dated November 11, 1999 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Addl. District Judge), Alapuzha, granting eviction under section 11(4)(i) of the Act reversing the order of the Rent Control Court (Principal Munsiff), Cherthala dated February 29, 1996. 2. Respondents 1 and 2, the landlords, filed R.C.P. No.14 of 1994 seeking eviction under section 11(4)(i) of the Act on the ground that the first revision petitioner/tenant had sub-let the building to the third respondent in the revision petition who was the second respondent in the Rent Control Petition. The first revision petitioner/tenant resisted the petition denying the allegation regarding the sub-lease. He contended that he was running a hair dressing shop in the CRP 795/2000 2 name and style “Beauty Hair Dressing” and that the third respondent in the revision petition is only an employee of the tenant. 3. On the side of the landlords PWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exts.A1 to A4 were marked before the Rent Control Court. On the side of the tenants CW1 was examined and Exts.B1 to B5 were marked. Ext.X1 was also marked. On an appreciation of evidence, the Rent Control Court found that the landlords failed to prove the alleged sub-lease in favour of the second respondent in the Rent Control Petition and dismissed the petition. On appeal by the landlords the appellate authority set aside the order of the Rent Control Court and allowed the Rent Control Petition, ordering eviction under section 11(4)(i) of the Act. The tenant/first revision petitioner has now come up in revision challenging the judgment and decree of the appellate authority. 4. During the pendency of the revision, the tenant/first revision petitioner died and his legal heirs are impleaded as Addl. revision petitioners 1 to 4. 5. Heard the counsel for the revision petitioners and CRP 795/2000 3 counsel for respondents 1 and 2. 6. The only point, which arise for consideration, is whether the finding of the appellate authority that the first revision petitioner/tenant has sub-let the premises to the third respondent in the revision petition can be sustained. 7. The specific case of the landlords is that the tenant/first revision petitioner has sub-let the premises to the third respondent in the revision (the second respondent in the Rent Control Petition). According to the first revision petitioner, he is conducting a barbershop in the petition schedule room and that the third respondent in the revision, the alleged sub-lessee, is only an employee under him. To establish the above fact, Exts.B1 to B3 were produced before the Rent Control Court. Ext.B1 is the licence in the name of the first revision petitioner/tenant dated July 25, 1994 for running a barbershop. Ext.B2 shows that the shop was registered in the name of the tenant from the Labour Department. Ext.B3 series are the receipts having paid for licence fee for the year 1993-94 onwards. The appellate authority is perfectly justified in not relying on Exts.B1 to B3 CRP 795/2000 4 as Exts.B1 and B2 are obtained pending Rent Control Petition before the Rent Control Court and Ext.B3 series were obtained subsequent to the notice Ext.A3. Thus there is no evidence except the interested version of PW1 to show that the third respondent in the revision petition/the alleged sub- lessee is an employee of the tenant. 8. If actually the third respondent in the revision was an employee of the tenant, there would have been documents to prove the same. On the other hand, the tenant is admittedly running a telephone booth at Kottayam, as revealed from Ext.X1. Further in the petition schedule room there are no materials belonging to the first respondent/tenant. If actually the tenant was in possession of the petition schedule building, there would have been documents to prove the same. Thus, the tenant has failed to show that the third respondent in the revision petition is an employee under him. Now the third respondent in the revision is in possession of the said room. That being so, it is for the tenant to explain how the third respondent in the revision petition came into possession of the said room. In the absence of any such explanation, the CRP 795/2000 5 appellate authority is perfectly justified in holding that the first respondent/tenant has sub-let the premises to the third respondent in the revision petition. That being so, the appellate authority is perfectly right in setting aside the order of the Rent Control Court and allowing the Rent Control Petition under section 11(4)(i) of the Act. 9. In the light of our above findings, there is no merit in the revision petition and the same has to be dismissed. In the result, the revision petition is dismissed. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE. P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE. mn CRP 795/2000 6 A.K.BASHEER & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~==~=~=~= C.R.P. No. 795 of 2000 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~==~=~=~= O R D E R 24th day of January, 2011