POYYIL SUKUMARAN Vs. PARAMBATHKANDY KELOTH KADEEJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Under challenge in this revision under Section 20 is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority ordering eviction against the revision petitioner tenant on the ground of cessation of occupation reversing the order of the Rent Control Court declining eviction on that ground. The landlord had invoked ground under Section 11(3) also. But, it is conceded by both sides that the order declining eviction under Section 11(3), in view of sub section (17) of Section 11, has attained finality. The landlord's allegation was that the building, which had been let out to the tenant for conducting tailoring business, was not used by the tenant for a continuous period of about 2 years without any reasonable cause. The tenant would dispute the allegation of the landlord. The tenant contended that on account of his wife's serious illness, the premises had to be closed for about a week. Before the Rent Control Court, the evidence consisted of Exts.A1, B1 to B9 series, PWs 1 and 2, RW1 and the commissioner's report Ext.C1. PW2 was the commissioner who submitted Ext.C1 report. PW2 in Ext.C1 reported that he inspected the building on three occasions during a span of 10 days and that on all the three occasions the building was found in lock. He also reported that locks of the building were found rusty and that huge quantity of dust and cob webs were seen on the shutter of the building as well as the front portion. It was also reported that a wall poster was found stuck to the wall and shutter together, indicating that the shutter had not been opened for quite a long period. Apart from reporting on the above aspects, the advocate commissioner would make enquiries with neighbouring shop owners and would further report that such enquiries revealed that the building had not been opened for about more than one year. One of the neighbouring shop owners, with whom the commissioner made enquiry, was the brother of the landlord himself. Even though the advocate commissioner, as PW2, gave evidence in terms of Ext.C1, the learned Rent Control Court did not become inclined to rely on the advocate commissioner's report. According to that Court, the Commissioner had not been authorised to collect evidence from neighbouring owners. Ext.C1 was eschewed from consideration. The Rent Control Court concluded that there was no acceptable evidence on the basis of which it could be held that the eviction ground under Section 11 (4)(v) stood established.

(2.) The Appellate Authority, however, would rely on Ext.C1 and also PW2's evidence. The Appellate Authority noticed that despite a statement by the tenant in evidence that there are documents which will show that he has been continuously conducting tailoring business as well as business in cracker in the petition schedule building, he had not produced any document. In that view of the matter, the Appellate Authority would reverse the finding of the Rent Control Court and conclude that the eviction ground under Section 11(4)(v) stood established. Accordingly, the order of eviction was passed under Section 11 (4)(v).

(3.) In this revision under Section 20 various grounds have been raised assailing the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority and Sri.K.V.Pavithran, learned counsel for the petitioner addressed us strenuous arguments on the basis of all those grounds. All the submissions of Sri.K.V.Pavithran, were resisted by Sri.R.Surendran, learned counsel for the respondent/landlord.