LAKSHMI Vs. RAHMATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenants, being the legal heirs of deceased original tenant, are in revision. They were sought to be evicted on the grounds of arrears of rent under Section 11(2), subletting under Section 11(4)(i) and reconstruction under Section 11 (4)(iv) of Act 2/65. It is conceded by both sides that the grounds of arrears of rent and reconstruction do not survive and it is only the ground of subletting which survives. We, therefore, in this revision, are concerned only with the ground under Section 11(4)(i).

(2.) The petition schedule building is not an independent building. It is a small part of a line building, going by the sketch which was placed before us by Sri Rajan P. Kalliath, learned Counsel appearing for the revision Petitioners. The adjoining portions of this line building belong to the revision Petitioner/tenant. In the adjacent portion, a hotel by name "Crown hotel" is being conducted and the work area, store area etc. of the above hotel is accommodated in the adjoining portions. The allegation of the landlady in the context of the ground under Section 11(4)(i) was that the petition schedule building has been sublet or transferred by the tenants to one Yoosuff, who is the second Respondent in the R.C.R. The allegation specifically was that it is Yoosuff who is actually conducting "Crown hotel" and the petition schedule building which is a kitchen area is used by Yoosuff as the kitchen of "Crown hotel". It is contended in the rent control petition that in spite of statutory termination notice issued under the proviso to Section 11(4)(i), the sublease was not terminated.

(3.) The tenants' specific defence to the ground of sublease was that the second Respondent is not a sublessee or transferee. It was contended that the second Respondent does not have any possession even of the petition schedule building. It was further contended that though the second Respondent was initially permitted to make use of the schedule building as the kitchen of the hotel on a licence arrangement, even before the statutory termination notice was received by the tenant, the tenants had initiated proceedings for evicting Sri Yoosuff. Therefore, it was contended that the petition for eviction on the ground of subletting is not maintainable in law. The Rent Control Court conducted a detailed enquiry in which the evidence consisted of Exts. A-1 and A-2, B-1 to B-4, and C-1 and C-2. The oral evidence consisted of that of P.W. 1 who was the manager of the land lady. Significantly, no counter oral evidence was adduced on the side of the revision Petitioners or the second Respondent, the alleged sublessee. The Rent Control Court, on evaluating the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the eviction ground under Section 11(4)(i) is not established in the case. According to the Rent Control Court, Ext. B-1 agreement will show that the arrangement between the tenant and the alleged subtenant is that of licence. Taking the view that there is no evidence to show transfer of possession or subletting, the learned Rent Controller declined order under Section 11(4)(i). The Appellate Authority made a thorough reappraisal of the entire evidence and would reverse the finding of the Rent Control Court and came to the conclusion that there is objectionable transfer of possession of the schedule building by the tenant in favour of the alleged sub lessee and that such transfer of possession was not terminated within the statutory period mentioned in the notice. In that view of the matter, the Appellate Authority ordered eviction on the ground under Section 11(4)(i), allowing the appeal.