SAINULABDEEN Vs. UDAYABHANU, S/O. JANARDHANAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant is in revision challenging the order of eviction passed against him by the Rent Control Appellate Authority on the grounds of arrears of rent, bonafide need for own occupation and subletting. The allegation of the landlord in the context of the arrears of rent is that rent at the rate of Rs. 70/ - per month has been defaulted since December, 1984 and was not paid despite statutory demand notice. The landlord's claim under Section 11(3) is that the building is needed bonafide for accommodating his dependent daughter Meera for conducting tailoring shop. The allegation of the landlord regarding sublease is that the building has been unauthorisedly sublet or transferred to the second respondent Shihabudeen, son of the first respondent. The defence of the tenant to the ground of arrears of rent was that the building was constructed by him only and that he is entitled to immunity from eviction. He however conceded his status as that of a tenant. His defence to ground under Section 11(3) is that the need is not bonafide. It was submitted that there is no sublease and that the sublessee is the son of the tenant and that he is present in the above building only for assisting his father. The Rent Control Court would make a thorough analysis of the evidence consisting of documents Exts.A1 to A5, Exts.B1 to B6, Exts.C1 and C2, the oral evidence of Pws.1 to 3 and Rws.1 to 3 and come to the conclusion that all the eviction grounds stood established and accordingly ordered eviction on all the grounds. The Rent Control Appellate Authority considering an appeal preferred by the tenant would make a reappraisal of the evidence and dismiss the appeal.

(2.) IN this revision under Section 20 various grounds are raised assailing the judgment of the Appellate Authority. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner addressed arguments on the basis of all those grounds. The learned Counsel pointed out that it was Pw2 Meera for whose purpose the building is sought for by her father. He submitted that at any rate, Meera cannot be a dependent on her father as she is depending on her husband.

(3.) ALL the submissions of the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner were opposed by Sri. P.C. Chacko, the learned Counsel for the respondent. Sri. Chacko reminded us of the limits of the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 20 for appraisal of evidence for the purpose of arriving at an independent conclusion on facts. We have anxiously considered the rival submissions addressed at the bar. We have gone through the order of the Rent Control Court and scanned the judgment of the Appellate Authority.