CHANDRAPRAKASH Vs. OKTOPALS SPORTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Review petitioners are the respondents in Rent Control Revision petition Nos.174, 177 and 175 of 2019. Since the questions that arise in these review matters are identical, they are disposed of by a common order.

(2.) The concurrent orders of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court, Thrissur and Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thrissur were set aside by this court in the above Rent Control Revision petitions by a common order dated 19.9.2019 and the Rent Control Petition Nos.111, 113 and 117 of 2005 on the files of the Rent Control Court, Thrissur were consequently dismissed.

(3.) The revisional court in disagreement with the view taken by the lower authorities held that the review petitioners failed to establish landlord-tenant relationship between parties despite the fact that the review petitioners acquired title to the tenanted building under Ext.A1 sale deed taken in their joint names. It was found that after the review petitioners having formed a partnership by name Nandilath Towers, the Firm used to collect rent from the tenants in the name of the Firm and therefore, the Firm was the landlord of the building as defined by Sec.2(3) of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short 'the Act'). Even though there was no deed executed evidencing constitution of Partnership Firm, acting upon the purported admission made by PW1 and also Ext.B1 rent receipt issued in the name of the Firm, this court held that existence of the Firm was proved.