ANILKUMAR Vs. HONEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Under challenge in this revision filed by the tenant under Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965 is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the order of eviction which was passed against him by the Rent Control Court on the ground of cessation of occupation under Section 11(4)(v) of Act 2 of 1965.

(2.) The building in question was let out to the revision Petitioner for conducting repair works of electronics and electrical goods. It was alleged in the rent control petition that the tenant had ceased to occupy the building continuously for more than six months prior to the filing of the rent control petition and that even the electricity connection to the building had been disconnected by the Electricity Board due to non payment. The revision Petitioner tenant through his statement of objections strongly disputed the existence of the eviction ground. Significantly, he did not raise a contention that it was due to any reasonable cause that he had ceased to occupy the building. The evidence before the Rent Control Court consisted of Exts.A-1 & A-2, Exts.B-1 to B-4 and Exts. C-1 & C-1(a) and oral evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 3 and C.P.W. 1 & 2. P.W. 3 was Adv. Ambili C. Joseph, who submitted Ext.C-1 commission report and C-1 (a) sketch. P.W. 2 was a neighbouring shop keeper who gave evidence to the effect that the building in question had not been occupied at all by the tenant for more than six months prior to the filing of the rent control petition. Ext.C-1 report was clearly to the effect that the building in question had not been used for much more than six months continuously by the tenant. The learned Rent Control Court on evaluating the evidence came to the conclusion that eviction ground under Section 11(4)(v) stood established in the case and accordingly ordered eviction.

(3.) As soon as the order of eviction was passed, the tenant filed a petition seeking review of that order as I.A. No. 3752/2007. It was averred in this I.A. that even before the rent control court passed the order of eviction, the landlord had sold off the entirety of his rights in the petition schedule building to one Smt. Prabha Kuruvila by virtue of sale deed No. 3639/2006 of Sub Registry, Kottayam. It was contended through the review petition that the landlord had ceased to be a landlord and the order of eviction so passed was liable to be reviewed. The main contention was that the sale of the building by the landlord in favour of Smt. Prabha Kuruvila was a subsequent event which fundamentally affects the landlord's right to maintain the rent control petition itself. The learned Rent Control Court did not become inclined to allow the review petition.