PADOLI KUNHIKRISHNAN Vs. SOOPIYADATH THEKKE PURAYIL MUHAMMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Under challenge in this revision filed under Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965 by the unsuccessful tenant is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the order of eviction passed against him by the Rent Control Court on the ground of cessation of occupation under Section 11(4)(v). The parties will be referred to as 'landlord 'and 'tenant'.

(2.) The case of the landlord was that the petition schedule building, which was let out to the respondent for making metal vessels, is not being used for the above purpose by the tenant continuously for more than 10 years and that his non user is without any reasonable cause. The tenant by a statement of objections denied the above allegation and contended that it is with oblique motives that the landlord has instituted the rent control petition.

(3.) The Rent Control Court enquired into the rent control petition. In the rent control petition, the evidence consisted of Pws1 to 3, RW1, CW1 and Exts.A1 to A9 and Ext.C1. Ext.C1 is the report submitted by an advocate commissioner who conducted an inspection of the petition schedule building as well as the tharwad building of the revision petitioner with notice to the revision petitioner. Ext.C1 report was to the effect that heaps of settled dust and cluster of cobwebs were noticed by him inside the building which at the time of inspection was found closed with two locks. The advocate commissioner clearly reported that by all indications, the building was not being used for any purpose. It was further reported by the commissioner that vessel making activity is being conducted by the tenant in his tharwad house, which is not far away from the petition schedule building. The commissioner himself was examined as CW1. PW2, a neighbouring shop keeper, also deposed that the premises have not been opened even by the tenant continuously for years. The Rent Control Court was very much inspired by the evidence adduced on the side of the landlord. It was noticed by the Court that as against the evidence adduced by the landlord the tenant had not produced even a scrap of paper to support his claim that he was actually conducting vessel making work in the petition schedule building. In that view of the matter, the Rent Control Court held that eviction ground under Section 11(4)(v) stood established and accordingly order of eviction was passed.