GEORGE Vs. RAMACHANDRA REDDIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent NO. 2 in R. C. P. 76 of 1987 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Alleppey is the petitioner in C.R.P. No. 919 of 1992 filed under S.20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act. The Revision Petitioner died pending the Revision and his legal representatives were impleaded as additional petitioners 2 to 4 in the revision. The first respondent herein, the landlord of the building which consisted of ten rooms in the upstair portion of a building out of twelve rooms therein filed the application R. C. P. 76 of 1987 for eviction of his alleged tenant one Thankappan impleaded as respondent No. 1 before the Rent Control Court under sub-s.2, 3 and 4(i) of S.11 of the Act. George, original revision petitioner was impleaded as respondent No. 2 before the Rent Control Court on the allegation that Thankappan the tenant had sublet the building unauthorisedly to George and that enabled the landlord to an order for eviction under S.11(4)(i) of the Act. In support of his plea under S.11(3) of the Act the landlord pleaded that he bona fide needed the petition schedule building for the starting of a lodging house by his eldest son who was dependent on him. The landlord or his son had no other building of their own. Thankappan was impleaded as respondent No. 2 in this revision and he having died, his legal representatives are sought to be impleaded as additional respondents 3 to 7. An objection was filed in the Rent Control Court purporting to be on behalf of Thankappan and George denying that there was any rent in arrears, denying the bona fide need set up by the landlord and denying the subletting alleged. Subsequently, Thankappan appeared and submitted before court that he had not joined in the objection nor had he engaged anybody to appear for him to file such an objection. Thankappan also gave evidence as PW. 2 in effect supporting the case of the landlord that he was the original tenant and he had sublet the building to George and it was the duty of George to pay the rent. The Rent Control Court held that the rent was in arrears and the landlord was entitled to an order for eviction under S.11(2) of the Act. The Rent Control Court also held that the landlord bona fide needed the petition schedule building for own occupation and was entitled to an order for eviction under S.11(3) of the Act. The Rent Control Court also held that the tenant was Thankappan going by the rent deed admittedly executed by Thankappan in favour of the landlord and going by the other evidence in the case and that there was a subletting in favour of George as alleged by the landlord and that subletting entitled the landlord to an order for eviction under S.11(4)(i) of the Act. Thus the Rent Control Court ordered eviction on all the three grounds. The person found to be a sub tenant by the Rent Control Court namely George filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority. Thankappan was impleaded as respondent No.2 in that appeal. The Appellate Authority on a reappraisal of the relevant materials came to the conclusion that there was an unauthorised subletting in favour of George by the tenant Thankappan and this entitled the landlord to an order for eviction under S.11(4)(i) of the Act. The Appellate Authority on an reappraisal of the relevant materials came to the conclusion that the bona fide need set up by the landlord was established and the order for eviction under S.11(3) of the Act was justified. The Appellate Authority also held that the rent was kept in arrears by the tenant and hence the order for eviction under S.11(2) of the Act was also proper. Thus the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal filed by George the alleged sub-tenant. C.R.P. 919 of 1992 is filed by George challenging the order for eviction.

(2.) Meanwhile the landlord filed a suit for a declaration that the landlord is entitled to withdraw or receive the amount of Rs. 23206 lying in deposit in R. C. P. 76 of 1987 giving rise to C.R.P. 919 of 1992 and for recovery of Rs. 2000 per month from the second defendant in that suit George as compensation for use and occupation for the period from 1.10.1991 till delivery of possession of the building to him and for recovery of an amount of Rs. 72,000/- being the compensation for use and occupation for the period of three years from 1.10.1988 till 1.10.1991 to be recovered from George the person who was using the building though he had no status as a tenant under the landlord. George resisted that suit essentially contending that he was the tenant of the building and not a sub tenant and he was only liable for rent and not for compensation for use and occupation. The Trial Court though it declined the prayer for declaration sought for, granted a decree to the landlord for recovery of the sum of Rs. 72,000/- with interest thereon and also for compensation for use and occupation at Rs. 2000/- per month from the date of suit till recovery of possession from George and providing that the realisation of the amount of Rs. 23206 lying in deposit in R. C. P. 76 of 1987 will abide by the orders to be passed in C.R.P. 919 of 1992. It is this decree that is challenged by the legal representatives of George in A. S. 625 of 2000. When A. S. 625 of 2000 came up for admission, the learned Judge ordered that the Appeal be posted with the Revision since the result of the appeal would obviously depend upon the result of the Revision. That is how both the matters have come up before us.

(3.) Before us learned counsel for George contended that this was really a case where the lease was a joint lease in favour of Thankappan and George and hence the finding the Thankappan was the tenant and George was a sub tenant or a transferee of the right of Thankappan was not justified. Counsel pointed out that even though Ext. A1 lease deed dt. 3.2.1970 was executed by Thankappan and on the terms of that document the building was let out to Thankappan for the running of an institution, it could be seen that the said institute is an institute personally run by George and that Thankappan himself had no education qualification to run such an institute. It was submitted that even though George was not a party to the deed Ext. A1, it was a case where George was a joint tenant with Thankappan. This contention raised on behalf of George was dealt with and repelled by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority on a proper appreciation of the pleadings and the evidence in the case. The documents produced by George only show that George was the Principal of the institute. Moreover whereas the letting was on 3.2.1970, we get a reference to George for the first time only in a communication dt. 23.6.1970, three months after the letting and in that George is described only as the Principal of the institute. Though it may be possible to lead parol evidence to show that the person who is described as the tenant in a document is not really the tenant but the tenancy was with someone else, it appears to us doubtful whether it could be established by oral evidence that the tenancy in favour of the person who has executed the written instrument was a joint tenancy of the executee and another person. It is not necessary to go into that question for the purpose of this case since on the materials, it is clear that George has not shown that he was anywhere in the picture when the lease was granted to Thankappan. The Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority have found on a proper appreciation of the pleadings and the evidence in the case that the building was let to Thankappan and it was not a case of a joint tenancy. In fact, a reference to the relevant material shows that the lease was granted by the landlord only to Thankappan so as to enable him to run an institute in the petition schedule building. We have therefore no hesitation in holding that George is only a sub tenant of the building or at best a transferee of the right of the tenant without the consent of the landlord. In either case, the landlord is entitled to an order for eviction under S.11(4)(i) of the Act. The decision of the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority in that behalf does not call for any interference.