IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI FRIDAY, THE 24TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 2ND ASWINA 1932 RCRev..No. 280 of 201O ---------------------- RCA.27/2008 of I ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD RCP.6/2007 of ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT, PALAKKAD .................... REVISION PETRS./APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS: --------------------------------------- 1. ABDUL RASHEED,S/O.ABOTTY,AGED 50 YEARS, PROPRIETOR,NEW STAR HOTEL AND BAKERY DOOR NO.11/1141 (10) M.A COMPLEX,T.B ROAD, PALAKKKAD. 2. ABBAS,S/O.ABOOTY, -DO- 3. RUBINA,W/O.ABDUL LATHIF -DO- 4. SENIL (MINOR) AGED 13,BY GUARDIAN MOTHER RUBINA -DO- 5. LUBINA,AGED 12,BY GUARDIAN MOTHER RUBINA, -DO- 6. MOHAMED SAIAN,AGED 10,BY GUARDIAN MOTHER RUBINA -DO- BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN SRI.S.SANTHOSH KUMAR (BALARAMAPURAM) RESPONDENTS/: ------------ 1. N.ABDUL MUTHALIF,AGED 78 YEARS,S/O.NOOR MOHAMMED ROWTHER,M.A.LANE,KOPPAM AMSOM,PALAKKAD. 2. MUSTHAFA KAMAL,S/O.SAINUDEEEN,AGE NOT KNOWN,11/1141 (12) M.A.COMPLEX,T.B ROAD,PALAKKAD. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K. Basheer & P.Q. Barkath Ali, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - RCR.No. 280 of 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 24th day of September, 2010 ORDER Basheer, J: This revision petition filed under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965, (for short, the Act) which is at the instance of the tenants of a commercial building, is directed against the concurrent order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court and the Rent Control Appellate Authority under Section 11(4)(1) of the Act. 2. The building was admittedly let out by the landlord who is respondent No.1 herein with effect from October 1, 2006. The building comprising of a large room having three shutters with two door numbers was let out to the petitioners for conducting hotel and bakery business. The landlord initiated eviction proceedings on the ground of subletting, when it was noticed that respondent No.2 herein had been put in possession and control of the tenanted premises. According to the landlord, the RCR.280/10. : 2 : sub lessee (respondent No.2) was found to have stored his stock in trade such as utensils, vessels etc. of which he was a dealer. The statutory notice issued by the landlord to the tenants directing them to terminate the sub lease did not yield any result. Hence the eviction petition. 3. The tenants in their counter statement filed before the Rent Control Court contended that the allegation of sub lease was totally baseless and incorrect. They insisted that they were still in possession of the tenanted premises. According to them, they had stopped the earlier business of hotel and bakery in the tenanted premises and started a new business of door to door vending of utensils and household articles. They had been keeping the above merchandise in the tenanted premises. 4. The alleged sub lessee in his counter statement contended that he had nothing to do with the household articles and utensils which were found in the tenanted premises and that he RCR.280/10. : 3 : had never been put in possession of the tenanted premises by the tenants. 5. The landlord got himself examined as Pw.1 and the Advocate Commissioner was examined as PW.2. Exts.A1 and A2 were marked on his side. One of the tenants got himself examined as Rw.1 and the alleged sub lessee was examined as RW.2 Ext.B1 to B6 were marked on the side of the tenants. The report of the Advocate Commissioner was marked as Ext.C1. 6. The Rent Control Court after an elaborate consideration of the oral and documentary evidence available on record found that the revision petitioners-tenants had sublet the building to respondent No.2 herein as contended by the landlord and therefore the landlord was entitled to get an order of eviction under Section 11(4)(1) of the Act. 7. The above order was challenged by the tenants before the appellate authority (Addl. District Judge No.I) who concurred with the view RCR.280/10. : 4 : taken by the Rent Control Court and ordered eviction. 8. It is contended by Sri.Jacob Sebastian learned counsel for the revision petitioners/tenants that the order of eviction, albeit concurrent, is totally illegal and perverse. According to the learned counsel, the courts below ought not to have placed undue reliance on Ext.C1 report of the Advocate Commissioner in coming to the conclusion that respondent No.2 (sub lessee) was in possession and control of the tenanted premises. 9. It is true that the Rent Control Court as well as the appellate authority have placed reliance on Ext.C1 report of the Commissioner also to come to the conclusion that the tenants had sublet the building. Admittedly the alleged sub lessee who was a dealer/vendor of utensils and other household articles was conducting his business in a building facing the tenanted premises. According to the landlord, the sub RCR.280/10. : 5 : lessee had been using the tenanted building as his godown. The Advocate Commissioner found that a huge quantity of utensils and household articles was stored in the tenanted premises. 10. But according to the petitioners, they were also engaged in the same business as that of respondent No.2. They started this new business after stopping the hotel and bakery business for which purpose the tenanted premises were taken on rent. They alleged that the hotel business was stopped since it ran into heavy loss. They started the new business in utensils in the year 2007 and all the articles that were found by the Advocate Commissioner in the building were part of their merchandise. In support of the contention that they had been doing the above business, the petitioners pressed into service Exts.B1 to B6 bills and contended that they had purchased these articles for the purpose of their business under these bills. But significantly these bills were issued in the year 2006. Admittedly the petitioners had RCR.280/10. : 6 : started their business only in the year 2007. Not even a single bill for the year 2007 or thereafter was produced by the petitioners at least to show that they had made bulk purchase of the merchandise in the year 2007 or thereafter. 11. It was noticed by the appellate authority that the total value of the articles purchased under Exts.B1 to B6 came to about Rs.50,000/-. The Advocate Commissioner found that the value of the merchandise available in the tenanted premises was for a substantially larger amount. 12. One of the tenants was examined as RW.1 before the Rent Control Court. He gave evidence on behalf of the other tenants. He admitted in the course of his examination that he had not obtained any licence from the Municipality for doing this new business. Still further, he admitted that no sales tax registration was obtained from the authorities and no tax was being remitted. The tenants did not produce any RCR.280/10. : 7 : document in relation to this “new business”. In this context it may be noticed that the Advocate Commissioner had mentioned in her report that a huge stock of vessels were found stored in the tenanted building from “floor up to the ceiling level”. Significantly Rw.1 admitted that he had stopped hotel business which was being conducted in the tenanted premises. 13. The Advocate Commissioner was examined as Pw.2. In Ext.C1 report the Commissioner had stated that huge quantity of vessels and other household articles were found stored in the tenanted premises. In the course of her examination the Advocate Commissioner stated that the son of respondent No.2 (the sub lessee) had helped her in completing the local inspection. The Commissioner gave notice to respondent No.2 at his shop just opposite to the tenanted premises. As mentioned earlier, respondent No.2 had been dealing in household articles on instalment basis. In fact the son RCR.280/10. : 8 : and an employee of respondent No.2 had opened the building when she went there for the local inspection. 14. We have carefully perused the report of the Advocate Commissioner. We have gone through the deposition of the witnesses examined on the side of the landlord and the tenants. Similarly we have also carefully perused the deposition of respondent No.2, the alleged sub lessee. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently contended before us that the authorities below had not given due weight and consideration to Exts.B1 to B6 purchase bills which indicated that the household articles were purchased by the petitioners for the purpose of their new business. But as rightly noticed by the courts below, those bills did not have any nexus with the alleged business in the tenanted premises. The petitioners having miserably failed in discharging the burden cast on them, the RCR.280/10. : 9 : courts below, in our view, were justified in ordering eviction. 16. Having carefully perused the orders passed by the authorities below and also the oral and documentary evidence available on record, we do not find any material illegality or irregularity in the concurrent order of eviction passed by the two authorities. No ground has been made out by the petitioners warranting our interference under Section 20 of the Act. The authorities below in our view were justified in ordering eviction. There is no merit in any of the contentions raised by the petitioners. The revision petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. A.K. Basheer Judge. P.Q. Barkath Ali Judge. an.