P.P. CHERIYAN Vs. V.S. MARIAM BEEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these revision petitions under Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965 are directed against the common judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority ordering eviction of the buildings, which are subject matter of the eight rent control petitions, forming part of a larger building situated in a very important area of Mundakkayam town abutting National Highway 220. The common ground, which was invoked by the landlady in all the rent control petitions, was the ground of reconstruction under Section 11(4)(iv). In some of the cases ground of sub letting and ground of arrears of rent were also invoked. The Rent Control Court on evaluating the evidence, which was adduced by the parties, ordered eviction in all the eight cases on the ground of reconstruction under Section 11(4)(iv). In RCP No. 9/2003, which corresponds to RCR No. 231/2010, eviction was ordered on the ground of arrears of rent and sub letting also. In RCP No. 9/2003 it was found that the tenant of the building is one Mr. Yoosuf, who was the first respondent in the RCP, and that the second respondent Bhaskaran is an unauthorised sub lessee. Against the order of eviction passed in that case, the tenant Yoosuf did not prefer any appeal. Mr. Bhaskaran, the alleged sub lessee, preferred an appeal as did the tenants in the other seven cases. The Appellate Authority made a thorough reappraisal of the entire evidence and would concur with all the conclusions of the Rent Control Court in the common judgment which was impugned in the appeals. The Appellate Authority dismissed all the RCAs, thus ordered eviction in all the cases other than RCP No. 9/2003 under Section 11(4)(iv) and confirmed the order of eviction passed on the ground of arrears of rent, sub letting and reconstruction in RCR No. 221/2010 pertaining to RCP No. 9/2003.

(2.) IT is the above common judgment which is impugned in these revision petitions filed before us. RCR No. 231/2010 is filed by Bhaskaran, the second respondent in the RCP No. 9/2003, who has been concurrently found to be a sub lessee.

(3.) WE have heard the submissions of Sri. Basil Mathew, learned Counsel for the revision petitioners and those of Sri. K.A. Hassan, who took notice on behalf of the respondent/landlady as directed by us.